This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
MS Backs Down On Encrypted Digital TV Recording
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion
We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion
Follow through... (Score:4, Interesting)
But I suppose it would be too much to hope for...
This can't be good. (Score:2, Funny)
(relax, it's a joke)
Re:This can't be good. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's a sign that:
a.) the consumer was wrong
b.) MS has found another way to do the same thing without the consumer finding out
c.) all of the above
Seriously, though, this has happened before [com.com]. Just keep an eye out in the future.
Consumers were just too stupid to "understand" it. (Score:5, Insightful)
When Microsoft realized that consumers couldn't "understand" their logic behind crippling the capabilities of our home computers, they gave up trying to sell people on the lack of functionality.
They didn't do this because it was good for consumers, they did it because their crippleware was effectively unsellable. Anybody who got a box with this software would simply install something that worked and thus lessen Microsoft's market share in this area. Something that comsumers don't buy is bad for Microsoft. That's all that really matters to Microsoft.
You're mistaken (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You're mistaken (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: You're mistaken (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft did something in the best interests of Microsoft. elping consumers was an unfortunate, inadvertent side effect
But wait. The customers refused to buy something that they didn't want. Microsoft realized that such a strategy wouldn't earn them any money. Since Microsoft wants money, they avoided doing what the customers didn't want. Is it possible that the system works? *shudder*
It is you who are mistaken ... about a great many things ...
Re: You're mistaken (Score:2)
Come up with a cheaper, better, yet backward compatible word processor and spreadsheet and maybe you can beat Microsoft, too.
You're missing a big point (Score:2)
And as to the success of the import filters in comparison to their competitors, that is because Word Perfect and Lotus didn't constantly change their format to screw up other people's import filters. You could cut 60% of the size of any Word or Excel doc just by removing the obfuscation elements meant to make it difficult to import.
Re:This can't be good. (Score:5, Insightful)
MS has just realized that they aren't a media company, and that people buying new computers to copy music, movies, and television to share with their friends is good for their business.
Microsoft will revive their encryption work when Hollywood gives Microsoft and Windows exclusive access their content. In other words Microsoft won't lift a finger to encrypt Hollywood's content until Hollywood promises to lock out all of Microsoft's competitors. Hollywood is opposing Microsoft in their bid to become the "one ring to rule them all," because they know that if they let Microsoft become the gatekeeper then Microsoft will rig the rig the deck so that Microsoft is the future keystone of broadcasting and distribution. And we all know that the toll-gate keeper makes all the money on a new road.
It's basically a choice between the lesser of two evils. Right now the folks pirating content seem like the lesser evil. Microsoft has enough clout so that they could force the market into using their DRM solution, but Hollywood doesn't trust Microsoft with that kind of power. Hollywood is hoping that they can get Congress to legislate DRM. That would allow them to get an industry standard instead of a proprietary Microsoft solution. Personally I don't see that happening, but Hollywood lives in a land of make believe.
Re:This can't be good. (Score:2)
The realists will know that Microsoft did this to make thier product sell better and actually make money. Like any good business, they'll only screw people if it increases shareholder value, right? Well, this time Microsoft customers didn't have to drink the Kool-aid, so forced copy protection has been shelved. Not scraped, but shelved...
It does make me curious: which distros of Linux provide similar PVR support. Mmmm?
Heard of Tivo? Ok, that's not a distro. Must be in here [sourceforge.net] somewhere though...
Soko
Re:This can't be good. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:(NT) Thank you for your hard work (NT) (Score:2)
Most credits should go to Krister and the others for making the program in the first place..
I'm developing a videofilter for MPlayer so we can show nice transparent menus on top of the videoscreen, and support for teletext, based on Zapping's libzvbi... That also involves patches to Pygame..
Anyway, Freevo will be all you ever needed!
Microsoft Security Ha! (Score:2, Insightful)
Pulled or just disabled? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft and the others know that the public won't go for DRM, so it has to be brought in gradually -- spread DRM software and hardware with DRM turned off, then when it's reached critical marketshare, flip the switch either on the servers or both the servers and workstations.
Make up the damn minds (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Make up the damn minds (Score:3, Insightful)
Please: yes Yes Yes (Score:2)
Thats how I feal about this new device.
Anyone who has had content theft (Microsoft and many music artists) will see content control as a nessisity or even a right.
Victoms or survivers of victioms often see it as a good thing to throw away other peoples rights to prevent a crime. Some times they actually do (prevent the crime).
But while it's carrer destorying content theft is as petty as shoplifting. Ban pockets or put antitheft devices in cloathing.
Microsoft like the RIAA has been a victiom of content theft. The big diffrence here is Microsoft's staff uses computers extensively the RIAA staff do not use fileshareing or if they do use MP3 players they use them for soungs they have full rights of. Oh like we all can afford to buy the whole rights to any artist we like yes?
Yes Microsoft is philosophicly bound to try far more than Circuit City.
I don't see Microsoft doing a Circuit City (We won't offer DVD players just DIVX) and then spend the next few years making it's money in car stereos and refridgerators.
I see Microsoft stuffing it's policy in EVERYTHING they make and going like Commodore did with the CD TV. Invest EVERYTHING so much that if it isn't a smash hit... not even Microsofts 210% marketshare will keep it alive.
(Yes I know you can't have more than 100% or can you? Just sell the same software to everyone twice and some people three times and make sure everyone has to buy the product even if they don't want it/need it or can ever use it. Who dose this? Microsoft... It's to prevent software theft. Becouse if everyone pays for the software nobody can steal it.)
However that was Commodore they were already really bad off and this is Microsoft they are pritty well off.
So I guess even at best we'll see Microsoft for the next five years at least.
Re:Make up the damn minds (Score:2)
Aren't these the same thing? I'd think nobody would want to buy the crippled appliance that the **AAs would force on us (BTW, in the context of the article, I think you meant to say "MPAA" and not "RIAA"), while the **AAs don't want an easy-to-use, open device ever get shelf space in stores.
Re:Make up the damn minds (Score:2)
Also, I think Win2000 reboots (rather than bluescreening) by default, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
We can't put too much stock in this (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past MS has appeared to be moving towards consumer rights, only to to take a couple step back in their next move.
They're holding out (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft simply knows which side their bread is buttered on. As the article states Sony already has a non-DRM version of the same gizmo, and Microsoft isn't a content company. People buying new computers to copy and share television shows is good for them.
Microsoft is waiting for Hollywood to become desperate, and then they will promise to secure digital media from one end to the other. Microsoft will promise to deliver Hollywood content directly from their ultra-secure servers in Redmond to the XBox2 on the customer's television. The agreements, of course, will be very exclusionary. Alternative formats, operating systems, or software will not be tolerated. If you want to see "Leave it to Beaver" then you will have to own an XBox2, and you will have to subscribe to MSN.
Microsoft figures that if they wait until Hollywood is desperate that there is some chance that they will turn their entire distribution and broadcast businesses over to Microsoft and MSN. Microsoft will become the new keystone of Entertainment, and we all know that the gate-keeper at the toll booth is the one that makes all the money on a new road.
Right now the media companies see Microsoft as a greater threat than the folks copying content. They know that if they give Microsoft control that they will all become subsidiaries of MSFT.
Re:They're holding out (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft is simply strong-arming them with this; the idea is to put Hollywood on notice that its Microsoft DRM or none at all. There is no *way* that BillG and STEVE! Ballmer would EVER allow Microsoft to become reliant on either an open standard they have to compete on and ESPECIALLY a proprietary system owned by someone else to do DRM for what many consider to be "the next killer app" for PCs.
They figure that if they make enough noise about unencrypted (copyable, sharable) video being available to consumers, Hollywood will run scared to MS begging to "partner" with MS on DRM, thus ensuring MS a place in their profit stream.
Any fantasies that this is about anything other than Microsoft locking itself into every consumer audio and video device made from now until 2030 they are fooling themselves.
Re:They're holding out (Score:4, Insightful)
Tin foil is for amateurs, I use MindGuard [zapatopi.net]!
In all seriousness, however, the problem is that the current systems, whether you are talking about cable, satellite, or worst of all broadcast television, can all be tapped quite easily. And once they can be tapped skipping commercials and sharing become ridiculously easy. Microsoft's solution to this problem is replacing these open standards and networks with their own proprietary closed system. It's attractive to Hollywood because it is the only system that is likely to actually have any chance of being accepted by consumers, and it would almost certainly be well beyond the average person's ability to "hack." Even better the DMCA should make people attempting to break the system into criminals.
Of course, this isn't going to happen. If Hollywood is stupid enough to put Microsoft in that sort of a position of power then they enjoying the raping that they would get once this system became widespread. Making Microsoft the cornerstone of your business is like putting a cannibal in charge of babysitting your children.
In other words, I don't think that this is going to work, but you can bet that Microsoft thinks it is going to work.
Re:We can't put too much stock in this QWZX (Score:5, Funny)
>> In the past MS has appeared to be moving towards
>> consumer rights, only to to take a couple step
>> back in their next move.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
> Name one time.
Sir, you are completely right. Microsoft has never even appeared to move towards consumer rights.
Re:We can't put too much stock in this QWZX (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft spoke out late last fall against the proposed SSSCA. Only to patent a DRM-enabled OS and then get into bed with the entertainment companies on content delivery.
One step forward. Two steps back.
Given this annoucement, look to see Microsoft either reintroduce this consumer-hostile measure in another guise, or backtrack on their position that DRM is best done through the market and not Congress.
Hallelujia (Score:5, Insightful)
For DRM reasons, I wasn't planning on getting a digital TV. The more steps backward that MS takes, the more inclined I'll be to improve my TV viewing experience. Now all that we as consumers have to do is keep up the pressure and let Gates and Company know that we're not about to just give in to their ideals. See? If consumers just speak up, we can get companies to listen. It's not fiction, and this is just a small snippet of proof. I'm looking forward to more stories like this one...
Re:Hallelujia (Score:5, Interesting)
They rewrote the WMP 6.4 and 7.1 security update EULA to remove the onerous "root access" provision.
Re:Hallelujia (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way to improve your TV viewing experience is...to stop watching.
Re:Hallelujia (Score:2)
"I don't watch television. Notice that I didn't say 'TV', because 'TV' is a nickname and nicknames are for friends and believe me, television is no friend of mine."
Go listen to your Dickie Crickets wax cylinders, you smug elitist prick.
MS bows to *HP* pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember it was Sony that fought for VCR time-shifting rights in the 80's. As both an electronics and a content company -- and I think they're more the former than the latter -- they can be rather two-faced depending on which part of the company you're hearing from.
Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure (Score:2)
Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure (Score:2)
The problem is that Sony is also a content company. You can bet that they aren't going out of their way to make it easy to copy and share music, but apparently they don't mind if you copy television, since they don't produce any of it.
Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure (Score:2)
sony is one of those balkanized conglomerates where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. remember, if they were better organized, we'd have minidisc data by now for desktop computers.
in this case, the peecee side of the business plows on ahead without consulting the movie production side of the business. and neither are coordinated with the professional video end of the business. i've interviewed sony executives when writing magazine articles and different parts of the company really don't talk to each other. the company is a dozen different divisions united by a common web site.
You know how this is going to work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowing what we know about the general public, which do you think is going to happen?
general public not totally insane (Score:3)
In fact Microsoft may run into trouble sooner rather than later in the living room PC market. A living room PC must use a custom form factor and run an extremely simple interface. These are things that Microsoft has no track record for, which opens the door for other players. Especially if those players can provide a lower-cost solution.
Re:You know how this is going to work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know how this is going to work... (Score:2, Interesting)
They'll wait for SP2 (Score:2, Interesting)
How is this a troll? (Score:2)
you DO know that WinXP (Score:2, Insightful)
But DVI will do this (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying this is a good thing, it's just where the industry is headed.
Re:But DVI will do this (Score:5, Informative)
My only hope, is that this trend continues, and consumers realize they shouldn't have to compromise their convenience for Hollywood's sake.
The real reason... (Score:3, Funny)
Cracks are forming in DRM finally (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that those with power in the industry are finally starting to see that the natives are indeed getting restless over this and realizing that they are headed for some extremely major consumer backlash if they press ahead with current DRM proposals.
Of course, it is not time to party just yet as the MPAA and RIAA have yet to acknowledge the clue stick which everyone and their brother has been whacking them with for the past 4 years, but if Microsoft and some members of Congress are starting to see the light, then anything is possible.
Once campaign finance reform kicks in and if voters give the Senetors and Reps from Disney/MPAA/RIAA the smackdown at the polls they so richly deserve, we might see the pendulum swing back our way again in the next 3-5 years.
Re:Cracks are forming in DRM finally (Score:3, Interesting)
Joe will sit their thinking how his Tivo never had this problem. Wondering why this new "device" even has a fast foreword button on the remote. Then he's going to put it back in the box and demand his money back. I'll be the guy outside walmart selling front row tickets to the refund line seating. It's gonna be great fun to watch.
People went balistic when Intel tried to fingerprint their CPU. Imagine when they find out some corporate slime is profiling their viewing habits via some robust deal between the hardware manufacturer and the "media" provider. "now why do I need to have my TV hooked up to the phone?", says Joe.
"Oh, thats so you can download the show listings" says the salesman. Coughing into his hand..."You'll probably want to order the deluxe package from your cable provider. Tell them you want the interactive service." chirps the friendly salesman. "Just remember you have to give them the model number of the unit and this activation number when you order."
Or something similar. We're hearing how digital TV is so great for the content creators. How secure and easy to use. They'll talk about how great the picture is. Nobody listening will care. Nobody will care how secure that is until aunt Rose can't get the news clip of Joe Jr. playing baseball Joe Sr. recorded for her. Recorded and then couldn't send to poor aunt Rose. Who will now never be able to see Joe Jr. play baseball from her wheelchair at the retirement home.
Just one possible scenario. One I like to use when describing DRM. Poor aunt rose all alone, and all the promises made of how great the future would be with these enabling technologies at our finger tips. lies, damned lies if it's allowed to happen.
do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
DON'T BE FOOLED! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, just as it is, all the broadcasters have to do is turn on recording restricitons on their side.
So don't be fooled. the dangers to our fair use rights (or priveledges as some would call it) are very real.
Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
The public will get a crash course in caring about their rights when they press the record button on their brand new toy and it says "Permission denied". The citizens may not care much when the government steps on various rights and starts wars, but there will be bloody revolution in the air if anything happens to television.
Not 100% correct (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice timing... (Score:3, Funny)
I think they know if people can't send movies they've recorded to their friends, MS's DVR would be less attractive..
The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:5, Interesting)
An interesting newsgroup thread over at Google News.
It's a question I've been asking myself. I mean, how will Microsoft succeed with their plans? Which manufacturer wish to be the first to have a huge disadvantage by supplying the initial Palladium-supporting hardware? How can we be sure that the manufacturers are simply going to release hardware supporting Palladium? Won't it just work like in the past instead, where mp3 players made it easier for piracy and DVD players often can be made region free, by a simple flip of a jumper? Where CD-burners often support low-level duplication and overburning they don't *need* to support, but manufacturers *know* that they're more likely to sell if their drive support CloneCD and similar programs that's used in 9 cases out of 10 for piracy. They never admit it, but everyone knows it.
How will Palladium suddenly change this philosophy of the manufacters? Won't they be tempted to go the "dirty" path (of course not officially; they'll just "not include Palladium support") by looking into the enormous public interest that will arise in hardware not supporting hardware copy protections?
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:2)
Market it to consumers as virus prevention.
Think about it, if Joe Consumer walks into Best Buy, sees two systems set up, and one has a big yellow sticker that says "PALLADIUM ENABLED to protect your system against viruses!", what do you think he's going to do?
If that's not enough, then talk about how Palladium will help reduce software piracy and thus lower the cost of software to the consumer. It doesn't matter whether or not any of this is true. If it turns out that Palladium doesn't accomplish any of these things, then Hey! Microsoft released a new service pack that fixes Palladium! And they're only charging $20 for it...
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:2)
Market it to consumers as virus prevention.
I personally think word would spread very quickly whether Palladium actually does provide virus protection or not. It's as with Napster or anything else that touches on the subject of piracy. Suddenly, millions of people know about it.
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:2)
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:2)
On one hand, you've got the large chunk of consumers who do pirate, and aren't going to like the concept; on the other, you've got the IT people who have dealt with copy-protection and how it screws over the good and the bad alike. I think pretty most people are very cynical about the concept of the company passing the savings on to you, so I'm not sure that will be a help either.
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:5, Insightful)
They will, initially, but the reason is that people need to be able to run the currently available operating systems on new hardware. So hardware manufacturers will implement Palladium in their hardware but will make it possible to disable it.
For now.
Once most people are running Palladium-capable operating systems (Microsoft will see to that), hardware manufacturers can get away with removing the ability to turn Palladium off. Only the fringe will care, and those people don't represent a large enough population to make the difference.
Understand this: the hardware manufacturers only care about their bottom line. If they can force people to upgrade their hardware, thereby generating more business than they would have had otherwise, they'll do it, and it doesn't matter how bad for the customer the method they use is. If other interests (the MPAA, the RIAA) pay them more than enough to offset the loss in business, they'll do it.
But my bet is that Palladium-required hardware will come at exactly the same time that legislation requiring its use is passed. Since the large corporations control our government, this will happen.
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:2)
You could argue the same thing about the DVD players with region encoding. Funny that my Aiwa (Sony) player can be de-region coded with a single code (first four digits of PI). Why do they do that? The bottom line. The know that there is enough people that will be buying those in europe, and won't buy them if they are not un-decodable.
Your not telling me that a little shit company in tiawan won't allow you to bios-disable the damn thing just to get a leg-up over the next guy.. (think MSI/Asus/etc.) There will ALWAYS be a way around it...
The day that it becomes so draconian as you have to go to the extremes of replacing bits inside the computer (think mod chips) is the day that a new platform comes out to fulfil a) consumer and b) hobbiests needs.
I personally could give a rats ass about paladium , I use Apple quipment. I know that Apple will always be against DRM as it gives them a competitive edge against MS. Think Rip Mix Burn.
The only thing that is really going to stop the show will be government legistlation, which will be an interesting show. I doubt that the EU, China, Japan, etc.(s) consumers are going to sit around and take it in the ass. I am -VERY- sure that american consumers are not going to sit around and take it in the ass while the rest of the world enjoys freedom of Non-DRM computing platforms.
Good points though.
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:2)
Yes, that's right. That's why all their DVD burners ship as DVD-for-Authors (so that you can make actual DVD backups of commercial titles you own)...
Except, oops, they don't. They sell their SuperDrives as "DVD-for-General", geared to prevent bit-by-bit copying. Oh, well. The myth of Apple as rebel against the Content Cartel certainly sounds nice.
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your last paragraph is the accurate one: the ability to turn it off will be removed only with legislation.
Still, with the intent to turn all computers into sealed boxes, you've got to know that lots of hardware makers will follow the lead of Apex and start including "secret" menus that "weren't supposed to be there." Also, the volume of identical but "DRM disabled" hardware shipped to Canada will grow tremendously.
It will take a long time for the CBDTPA to pass into law. It will take longer still for a "standard" to be agreed upon and implemented. The optimist in me says that by the time all this happens, the current crop of "legal" uses for computers will be commonplace, and any attempt to remove them will be resisted by *everyone*, not just geeks. Then the law will be quietly shuffled to the side, unenforced until it is finally struck down as unconsitutional.
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:2)
To the end user, this doesn't look like the reduction of rights we all know it is, but rather as a newer more enhanced works worth the new stuff system. Microsoft won't even need to market it as virus protection.
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail? (Score:3, Insightful)
You underestimate the threat.
Palladium has NO inherent disadvantage. There is no reason to buy (or sell) a non-Palladium machine. The "Palladium enhanced" computer can do everything a normal computer can do, and in addition it can run Palladium programs. This will give access to Palladium content, movies, music, whatever. If you don't buy Palladium content then you lose nothing by having the Palladium chip in your computer.
The only disadvantage to Palladium is if we can make it a public relations nightmare. Microsoft and friends have a very workable plan to get it out there. Do not underestimate them.
-
MS didn't back down all the way (Score:5, Informative)
The Media Center software has been changed so that now the copyright owner, not Microsoft, gets to decide whether a particular TV program will be "encrypted to the hard drive"--meaning, "unable to be viewed on a different PC or DVD player."
THIS IS DONE by making the Media Center software cognizant of a television standard called Copy Generation Management System for Analog (CGMS-A). If a couple of bits in a program's CGMS-A settings are switched on, Media Center PCs will encrypt the program, making it unplayable on anything but the recording PC. Leave them unflipped, and the program remains copyable. Microsoft says its testing found no television programming with the encryption bits turned on.
Re:MS didn't back down all the way (Score:2, Insightful)
How long before someone figures out how to "flip off" these couple of bits either by intercepting the data stream in software and stripping them out, or hacking the CPU. I can envision a whole lot of web-sites devoted to this, much like the little kits of conductive eopxy that you can use to overclock you AMD...
Re:MS didn't back down all the way (Score:5, Insightful)
In order for this to work, Congress must pass a law that enshrines "fair use" as a guaranteed right that must be allowed by any copy-prevention system.
Also, any stream that contains "copy flag bits" must be required to include the expiration date of the copyright. Copy-prevention systems must be required to freely decrypt material that has entered the public domain.
A "copy flag bit" that doesn't also include an expiration date clearly violates the "limited Times" clause of the US Constitution.
Does anyone know if CSS-scrambled DVDs or WMA-scrambled audio streams include a copyright expiration date? I don't think so...
Re:MS didn't back down all the way (Score:2)
I really hope Lessig succeeds in the Supreme Court and Boucher succeeds in Congress. If not, most of our cultural works from the 20th century onward will be unrecoverable by future historians. The last copies of out-of-print books will have crumbled to dust, along with the last celluloid prints of our films, leaving only scrambled encrypted disks and DVDs, the hardware for reading which will be long gone.
MUstickD: From the same company... (Score:5, Informative)
©2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Advertise TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement GetNetWise
For some reason I have the feeling that there is a bit of garbage floating around somewhere in one or both of these articles.
-Rusty
Keep It Simple, Stupid? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that MSFT backed down on this issue is just another sign of desperation. They must be wondering whether there's any demand at all for Media Center PCs... because there sure as hell isn't demand for recording shows that can only be played back on your crappy monitor.
Microsoft's obsession with "convergence" is ridiculous. Apparently their target market consists of "young urbanites" and starving students who live in living spaces so cramped that they couldn't possibly squeeze in a separate VHR or DVR... so they're willing to put up with the hassle of recording shows on their hard drive, bogging down their PCs as they pound out a late night term paper. Don't forget the logistical nightmare of bringing their recorded shows over to Bob's house so they can watch it with buddies and beer (remember, their living quarters are too crowded to allow visitors). Someone's going to be burning a lot of DVDs.
What a strange reality those Microsoft folks are living in. The true market segment for Media Center PCs are lonely techno-hermits, 15 y.o. media pirates and some geeks who like toys. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Keep It Simple, Stupid? (Score:2)
So you mean Microsoft will be advertising Media Center PCs solely on Slashdot?
(P.S. I know what a TV show is, but this show on Thurdays, what do they mean by that word, Friends? And how do you say it in Klingon?)
Re:Keep It Simple, Stupid? (Score:2)
After all, if a starving student can afford to plunk down $2000 for an $800 PC, said student can afford a bigger apartment and won't NEED the "space-saving" features in the first place.
And you'd think a techno-hermit would know better than to buy an overpriced OEM machine.
The week in review, so far (Score:5, Insightful)
Mid week, MS says "No need for encryption" in our video recorder.
Why do I have this feeling that Friday's story will be how the movie companies are throwing money Microsoft's way, and that MS now thinks that encrypting the video isn't so bad after all.
Call me cynical, but this sounds like MS trying to get leverage on the movie industry, rather than helping the consumer.
Re:The week in review, so far (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The week in review, so far (Score:3, Insightful)
IOW, it looks to me like M$'s view is: getting in bed with the **AA looks like a great way to sell *everyone* the next version of Windows.
And as someone else noted, seeding it thru DRM in WMPn is likely to be how it achieves market penetration. At some point WMPn will be updated to stop working with old Windows, and then.. see my first paragraph.
Ugly scenario even if only part of it works
Relax... (Score:3, Interesting)
Relax RIAA. They can always add it back in with the inevitable security patch.
Market Penetration and Consumer Fashion (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Price (around $2k)
2) No real benefits over conventional PCs
3) Loss of conventional computer features.
4) Wacko copy protection
Obviously, a product like this is not going to sell well.
This news TEMPORARILY (they can always re-add it after market is successful) removes #4 from the list of problems. Therefore, one would assume that less problems for sales = higher sales.
Like most actions that seem altruistic, this can be passed away in the Evil Empire paradigm yet again.
Heil Gates.
Cheers,
Public pressure... bah humbug! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish it weren't so, but it is... so the question becomes, why did MS decide to do this? Answers:
- Creates more media coverage for the launch of a new XP version and HP machine. How much of the cNet article covered the issue, and how much talked about the new machine?
- Converts a few wanna-be geeks to the MS side (almost typed "dark side"... oopsie). They browse around, see the link, think MS is on their side, and decide that the MicroSerfs can't be all *that* bad.
- Offsets flashback from Palladium and Media Player DRM. "Hey, look, we aren't kowtowing, we fought back for YOU!". It also provides ammo for people who are going to go pro-MS when the next argument about DRM comes to town.
- Gives the geeks at 1 Microsoft Way (yes, there still are a few) some small sense of victory over the Corporate Drones (tm)
- Lets MS test the leash on the **AA. They do this, then wait and see. If the AA's come after them, then MS gets to "fight for the little guy" in a court battle they'd likely win, gets lots of publicity, and gets a boost to their image. If the AA's don't do anything, MS gets to claim a small victory, and maybe in 6 months they take another small step forward towards opt-in instead of opt-out on DRM in Windows.
Lets face it, the decision is mostly win-win for MS, and the great news is that Joe Average, who didn't give a rats ass about DRM for this new PC, has only heard "Microsoft bows to consumers, does what they want", not "Microsoft plans to restrict digital recordings more than analog". He reads the ad...err...article, thinks how nice this lil toy would be... *and*, MS tests out the strength of it's bond with HPaq. This little "change of heart" should show PDQ whether MS can count on HPaq to be a friend or foe... and given the new "WalMart PC" and it's butt-ugly linuxesque interface, MS needs to know who it's friends are.
Game, set, match, MS. Bill may have a bad haircut, but he doesn't hire idiots.
On a related note, have you seen the new WalMart PC's? If Linus had a grave, he'd be rolling in it!
Some bit of this is right. (Score:2, Informative)
Many of the reasons that Microsoft designs systems the way it does have more to do with the avoidance of the cost of late design changes, or with what the perceived market or users from studies shows when the projects were in the design stage. Unfortunately, Microsoft does get plagued from time to time with the "forward-looking" strategy whereby someone looks too hard at what could be the future, and designs something which shows that they weren't looking hard enough or in the right places. Remember that all software you use today took teams of people years to design, implement, and test.
There are great benefits to DRM. If I give you a video I make, but don't want you distributing, then I have the ability to make it really difficult for you to distribute it. Let me give you an example you're not used to hearing. Lets say I make a video of my children. I'm not selling you this media. I'm giving you it, but the ownership is really mine. I don't want you to accidentally or otherwise post this video on the internet where some pervert can watch the video and plan to abduct my children. DRM lets me excersize my ownership rights. If I encode the video so it only plays back on selected computers and is unencryptable otherwise, then that lets me protect my rights.
DRM can also go to far. Requiring DRM on all recording from television can prevent people from excersizing their legal rights. Requiring it on the digital recording of *Copyrighted* materials isn't going too far, provided that fair use rights are still preserved. People and companies who pour out the millions of dollars to produce something which you consume should have a right to make efforts to prevent the illegal distribution of their work.
But the real bottom line is that nothing Microsoft _can_ do will prevent you 100% from being able to reverse engineer the code, capture the digital data, and remove the protection mechanism. And also, on that note, security is never finished. Once someone who can write code to exploit _any_ flaw in _any_ product on your system does, then it can basically do what you can do.
Don't get me wrong, we make lots of valiant efforts to close all things we know and can automate testing to find, but even if we close _billions_ of possible holes, it only takes _one_ hole before a new headline shows up on
If you think that is bad, well, take into perspective that Microsoft Windows XP alone has something on the order of 65 Million lines of code. Since the security push started, this code has been checked by the hands of Microsoft developers and testers who know the code, Microsoft developers and testers who don't know the code, _and_ by automated tools written by Microsoft security experts to analyze this code for flaws. Every file has to get signed off on. Every line is code reviewed by 2 or more very capable people. Every change that results has the potential to destabilize or break functionality in Microsoft software and software that depends on it.
The world is a lot more complicated than seen through the perspective of a
I've posted several times to
Re:Some bit of this is right. (Score:2)
I don't buy a computer so that everyone else can make money off of me. I buy a computer for my own use, just like when I buy a shirt or a coffee pot. It is not an advertising appliance in my home, it is not a subscription kiosk to a dozen different "services".
Listen closely, and listen well. Microsoft does no one any favors. This isn't a rabid linux fanbody rant. Hell, General Electric does no one any favors, nor does Sony, Chrysler, or any other successful corporation. The difference is that nobody from Black & Decker is trying to sell me a less functional product for more money while spewing the brazen lie that they're doing me a favor.
Everyone at Microsoft who thinks that they're working hard to provide the end user with a superior product had better pull his head out and look around. Microsoft produces no consumer grade software for which there is not a superior open source product. Outlook, IE, Office, Explorer, Media Player, fricking Solitaire, so on and so on all have open source alternatives that are more secure, more feature rich, more stable, designed with more intelligence (VBScript, anyone?) and do not subject me to future restrictions. Microsoft does not sell quality. They do not sell security. They do not sell variety, choice, or options. There is nothing wrong with this. They are, afterall, a company trying to make a buck. The catch is that it pleases me none at all when this very same company spews forth PR spin and slogans that are completely contradict everything they have done, are doing, and have planned for the future.
"Microsoft: Let us show you the world." Who's to say that wouldn't sell just as much software as "Where do you want to go today?" It has the added benefit of not being an implicit lie, or practically grovelling on its knees begging the answer, "A long, long way away from Microsoft." Face it, MS is not in the business of selling products that meet the consumers' desires anymore. It is selling products that meet MS's desires for future revenue. That's a very profitable business plan, and high marks to MS if they can pull it off. The problem is that it is simply retarded for them to puke forth all this PR about "doing me a favor", because we're all a little too smart to think that MS gives two shits about doing me a favor.
We are too smart to believe the BS that comes from Microsoft, and if Microsoft ever wants to regain the techie/geek market in any form, then Microsoft is going to have to stop the bullshit PR, stop the anti-American monopolistic attack on our economic system, make some software that isn't junk, and make amends. Until then, Microsoft and all its trolls can go fuck off, because you aren't smart enough to know from where the money in your paycheck comes.
Who would buy one of these "Digital Media PCs" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
From 1996: Gateway Dimension, or "more crap they try to sell you" [businessweek.com]
Why would anyone but (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why would anyone but (Score:2)
You know what? A standalone system would do it better.
Re:Why would anyone but (Score:2)
MS Backs Down On Encrypted Digital TV Recording .. (Score:2, Funny)
Is there a catch? (Score:2, Insightful)
NOT correct (Score:5, Informative)
The real news should be that Microsoft has extended and embraced the MPEG-2 format.
uh-oh (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft has changed their business plan to satisfy the demands of potential customers. Multiple sightings of streaming blazing fireballs hurtling through the sky have been reported by civilians.
Yes, I thought it sounded made up too...
Classic Strategy (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft promises a system that will encrypt everything and lock out every conceivable fair use of digital media. They've set expectations very very low. Now any move on their part to relax this position is seen as a major pro-consumer move.
Behind the scenes (Score:2)
It's only a short term ploy. (Score:2)
Its all a matter of time. But today we get to see 'improved' marketing and blunder control..
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
They will learn when people vote with their spending power.
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Redundant)
Ummm. 1975?
Re:Interesting. (Score:2)
Re:MS bow to consumer pressure? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The whole "digital PC"... (Score:3, Funny)
And they should give it a really cool name, like iMac or something!
Re:wha? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:wha? (Score:2)
Re:New imporved FP version 14.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the difference.
Re:Not good (Score:3, Funny)
Well, if your entire strategy for promoting GNU is based on "Microsoft needs to be a bunch of abusive fuckups" then perhaps your strategy is in need of revision.