Slashdot Mirror
Intel Cutting Linux Out of Content Market
An Anonymous Reader wrote in to mention an Inquirer story suggesting that Intel is planning on cutting Linux out of the content market. From the article: "The vehicle to do this is called East Fork, the upcoming and regrettable Intel digital media 'platform'. The funny part is that the scheme is already a failure, but it will hurt you as it thrashes before it dies. Be afraid, be very afraid."
Time to buy stock in AMD. I imagine they'll be happy to support the market share that Intel doesn't want to.
-TLAY
Wow, I haven't seen an article this biased in a long time. This is not journalism, this is flaming.
-- Cheers!
Sunday is a slow news day, but geez. This is news? So Intel (or Microsoft/Toshiba/Sony/Phillips/Haliburton) is making a media PC? Um, who cares?
My CDs play well on my $29 stereo, and in my car. FM radio, where it isn't ClearChannel, sounds just fine. Perhaps the drones who are EMPOWERING Intel to make this move are going to suffer. Why must your PC converge with your TV?
Why must you have 55" plasma, Dolby 11.1 surround, with Foomatic DSP and Orgasmatron effects? Christ, step outside and go for a walk, see a local band, read a book, play with your dog, have sex with your wife. This is your life, man, and its ending 1 minute at a time.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I'd love to use something like iTunes. Unfortunately, because of the DRM, the fact that the files aren't compatible with Linux, my Palm, and whatever else I want it to be with, I'd rather just pirate the damned thing. Then I get it in a format I know works.
Computer software. If the first damned thing that I'm going to do is scour the net for a "nocd" patch to get rid of the ridiculous SecureROM crap, then I'm more likely to grab the entire package. Add to that a point-of-sale variation on DRM, the no-return policies, and the fact that so much of the software out there sucks, doesn't perform as advertised, crashes, or is incompatible with hardware it should work with, and people are more likely to pirate the software.
The content companies can keep shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully, the U.S. government will eventually come in and slap all these companies down with anti-trust violations and the like, but I'm not holding my breath. Microsoft, the RIAA, et al. donate a lot of money, you know.
Then how will you get your TV?
/.ers do now.
Over the internet, from people in countries with sane copyright law, same as a lot of
0 1 - just my two bits
No. It's more like
If you don't like it, you can live without music, TV and movies, an increasingly appealing proposition to me.
Sign me up.
tv and movies wouldn't be that much of a loss to me, but i really dig music.
then i remembered that one nice part about music is you can make your own.
True ... but you're assuming that much of the cultural production of our day has any value. Most of it does not, and can well be lived without. That, ultimately, is the crux of the matter. At what point does the impact of DRM and other anti-competitive, consumer-unfriendly technologies become so great that we will turn back to each other for entertainment and companionship?
... so what? To me, cultural production should be a product of the culture itself, not a tiny, unenlightened, arrogant subset of it that claims to represent everyone else in it. There's a lot more to life, to culture, than the products of the RIAA and the MPAA, although they'd rather you didn't think too much about that.
... I say switch that little bastard off, go kiss your significant other right on the lips, and go out for a nice long walk. In the long run, you'll both be better off without Hollywood running the show.
The media people will try to find that "sweet spot", the point where they remotely control all content distribution and use, but where we aren't quite irritated enough to keep our wallets firmly jammed in our pockets where they belong. Current experiments with copy-protection and DRM are proving that the threshold of pain is currently very low for consumers: if I can't watch what I want when I want then you can just stick this disc up your a** (and this is as it should be!) However, after some time and incrementalism, whereby we keep losing bits and pieces of what we've come to enjoy since the advent of the VCR, we will one day wake up in a world where there is an automatically-deducted charge for viewing each individual frame of a movie. If I am still able to buy books at that point, that's what I'll be entertaining myself with. The rest of the population probably won't have that option, since at the rate we're going, it is unlikely they'll even be able to read.
We've been hypnotized into believing that we absolutely must have a television (the larger the better, and preferably HDTV-ready), a DVD player and disc collection (the larger the better) and that the movie theatre is so important that we will regularly part with nine or ten bucks to see the latest round of wooden acting and plotless filmmaking (can you say, "Episode III?" I knew you could.) To that I say
To all you people that spend your spare time in front of your computer or watching that 60" Hi-Def
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This is actually the very doomsday scenario that caused the British Government in the 1940s to ban the use of cable for broadcasting. Dissent will be impossible, you WILL see the content that is proscribed and no other, for no other content will exist.
In the same way pirate radio simply doesn't exist in the US, pirate TV will not do so either. If more people had access to multicast streams, it would be very easy to set up dissenting sources of media, but that isn't going to happen.
Sure, there are technologies like DeCSS around. They are banned in the US, under the DMCA, but they are around. Eventually, though, they are bound to fail. The penalties will become too severe, there won't be any safe havens left for developers to operate in. (DeCSS only exists because other countries haven't gone DRM-crazy yet.)
There is also the fact that Intel is a near-monopoly. In the same way Microsoft killed off Netscape, Intel CAN kill off all non-DRMed media by simply refusing to play it - or, worse, creating a log of un-DRMed content and sending the list to "interested parties". The technology for this exists and would certainly be in the spirit of the DMCA.
Does this mean Intel are evil? Not necessarily. "Can" is a long way from "will". There is no proof of intent to cause harm. Harm is inevitable, when you go down this kind of road, but there is no proof that that is why Intel is going there.
Personally, I believe Intel see this as a way to make money off the RIAA and MPAA - sponge off of their paranoia - and therefore solidify control over their corner of the market. I don't see this as Intel trying to censor or trying to "cut Linux out".
Nonetheless, once the technology is out and branded with the Intel logo, it will be used to censor (by the RIAA and MPAA) and will be used to cut Linux out (by Microsoft and possibly SCO). The long-term consequences are inevitable, even though I don't believe Intel are doing this for those reasons.
Intel is out to make money, and the most money comes from having the most power. The same is true of all the other companies. Power is not an end in itself, it is a means of becoming filthy rich and staying that way. It is necessary in order to attain and maintain that state. Without power, alternatives can thrive and that will reduce profit.
Intel are no more evil than Star Trek's Ferrengi and are driven by much the same belief system. Their "crime", if it can be called that, is to ignore the consequences of that belief system. It doesn't affect their profit margin, so is of no consequence to them, regardless of how it impacts others.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"This guy sounds like a doomsday fanatic to me."
Why? Because he paints an unpleasant picture?
What part of the picture seems unreasonable? That Microsoft, Intel, RIAA and MPAA could be in bed together? That these corporations are run by greedy bastards that really don't have your best interests at heart? That these powerful corporations could buy congress? That people are fucking sheep too busy with their little lives to pay attention to important issue until it's too late?
The man hit the nail on the head folks. The corporations have done that statistical math as it applies to a population of self centered, apathetic consumer drones. Their formula is based on the fact that although a small percentage of the population is unpredictable, the vast majority are predictable.
John Lennon said it really well in "Working Class Hero"
A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see,
So go ahead and ignore all the warnings and mock them as doomsday predictions. After all, you must. The corporate consumer drone formula says so.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Same article was posted last week, was it not?
c -usat_x.htm t rategy_in_tatters/
l eID/15996/15996.html
And anyways; big whooping deal!
1. It will *fail*. The cable companies, and alternate provides (like TiVO) will crush Intel, Microsoft, and anyone elses who attempts to develop a media pc. Why? Because the average consumer is much more willing to have an instant-on appliance managed by an outside operator which looks to cost very little (only $5 more on your monthly bill!) than an expensive looking ($500-$1000 at your local electronics store) box with a moderately arcane setup (all you have to do is use this IR transceiver to transmit codes to your cable box, and then program it for the right codes!, or something to do with this new 'cablecard' deal, which few people (especially the cable companies) seem to know much about)).
Also, I suspect the Windows-based media boxen will be notoriously unreliable and buggy. Also late. Look at Microsoft's IPTV initiative. It's running *way* late. Even for the providers that are already signed up! SBC's techs are sweating bullets right now:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-06-07-sb
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/ms_iptv_s
While it *looks* like Microsoft is on-track with Comcast, Comcast excutives have repeatedly said they are evalutating both iGuide (their current supplier) as well as Microsoft for their boxes. And historically, Microsoft has a terrible record when dealing with cable companies:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/Artic
Do you *really* expect to have any of these companies roll out a full MS solution on-time without siginificant bugs? I don't, and as soon as one supplies switches, or has a miserable failure (ready Comcast's Oregon MS set-top system freezes for a week) the whole market will break loose.
Which, incidentially, is how Microsoft lost the *rest* of the world regarding IPTV and set-top boxes, which is especially ironic given their size (4737489372 pound gorrilla), and that most content providers started out by saying that the MS solution was their future.
2. Intel's DRM will be cracked. Anyone play a DVD on linux? Did you do it using your licensed player, or your technically illegal libdvdcss? (Except, of course, in a few countries in the world. U.S. is *not* including). This is the primary way that people play DVDs on linux; this is not a niche solution.
3. Most likely, Intel will provide a closed-source kernel module that will provide an API to interact with a closed-source graphics driver. Nvidia and ATI will do the same thing, as well. So you'll be able to get gimped, DRM TV on your linux box, as well.
People have been crying that the sky has been falling for a long time. The problem is, Intel/Micosoft have never been able to deliever the 'killer' solution that ends all competition. They are always a day late and a dollar short. I really just don't consider them a serious threat.
A *far* more serious threat to home linux theatre PCs is the arcane setup required for most linux DVR projects. Fix that mess, and you'll see cheap linux home theatre pc's avaliable at walmart.
Not that I'm blaming the MythTV developers, or the Freevo developers. But it is hard to get those projects up and running correctly at home, and I imagine that from a developer perspective it looks easier to build an MS solution than a Linux solution, which is why the big media distribution companies are looking at MS first.
Once they get their hands wet (as the European firms did), they give up on the MS bugs. I expect an annoucement from Bellsouth to that effect shortly.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Is there really anything worth watching on TV anymore? I probably watch one or two hours a month tops. They put out boring crap that doesn't even interest me in the slightest.
Go rent the movie you want to see and watch it on your DVD player. Or, for that matter, a few minutes spent looking for torrents will find you almost any movie or TV show worth watching, if you don't mind waiting for the download and taking the chance that you will get caught.
Music? Well if you want the latest top 20 you will have to either pay for the cd's, listen to the radio or try to find a download and take your chances.
I think that all the interesting new stuff is being put out by small independent bands. if I like the music I try to buy directly from the band if I can. I don't plan on buying anything at all from the big studios if I can help it. Hopefully my refusal to buy from them is part of the reason the greedy bastards are complaining so much.
There are a few people putting out "open" content now. Some of it can be found on http://www.legaltorrents.com/
Talk up "open content" to all of the non-tech's you know. How many slashdotters are there? If a hundred thousand techs started mentioning it to the sheep tomorrow it would create some buzz.
Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
DRM is only a problem if the content is being distributed with it attached. When the artists are in charge of their own distribution, they are free to not do this. As technology drives the cost of distribution towards zero, distribution will become commoditized. Artistic effort, by its very nature, can't be commoditized. The end result will be that the artists will be in control, as customers and clients. Some will choose to use DRM, some will not. The market will take this into account when deciding who is most convenient to pay attention to, and any DRM that inconveniences consumers substantially will not be economically viable.
The only problem is that this will take a while.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.