Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Swears Vow Against 'Son of iPod'
Future Linux-Guru writes "The LA Times is running an article on Microsoft's efforts to preempt any single manufacturer from dominating the online video market. Among the scarier revelations is the development of AACS, a new already approved security system designed to prevent piracy on HD DVDs, which subjects users to forced upgrades." From the article: "Whichever way it shakes out, Gates vows not to play the victim in 'Son of iPod.' After learning a hard lesson in the digital music business, 'we're really having to work more closely with partners in the hardware industry and content industry, to really think through the whole end-to-end experience and make it better,' Gates said. 'That's where we've done our mea culpa. We are fixing that.'"
Microsoft's efforts to preempt any single manufacturer from dominating the online video market.
I think he means "any OTHER single manufacturer". I'm sure Microsoft will be just find and dandy if THEY were the single dominating online video provider.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
because everyday it seems the "customer" isnt the person who buys the product
AACS - R.I.P.
*2005
+2005
Essentially what you have is a collection of the biggest egos in the world trying to collaborate on a single project which will affect the entire movie industry as well as the customers who buy those movies. And the studios in question not only have a history of fighting each other tooth and nail, but of going head-to-head with Microsoft whenever they get the chance.
Conspiracies between megalomaniacs rarely end well.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Well all the current state of DRM on DVD did for the movie industry is allow them to force you to watch a bunch of bullshit trailers for other movies before you can watch the one you purchased. Every time.
What about single company dominating OS market ?
Cute. Hope that works out for you. Guess what system I won't be buying.
What exactly is the problem with all of these supposedly highly-intelligent but obviously completely brain-dead (not to say stupid) CEOs? If you put annoying copy protection stuff on your media or try to force people to do any other sort of crap like that, they will simply take their money to the black market. This is the lesson of online music. You will not have total control over the media, because the people with the money will not accept that. End of story.
The only CEO on the planet who seems to understand this is Steve Jobs. Yes, iTunes has various limits, but they are so wide that 95 per cent of the people don't give a damn because they never encounter them: If I want to share music with my kid sister, I can. So what if I can't share it with 200,000 other people on the Internet? This, not any clever usability stuff, is why iTunes has 80 per cent of the market. Just why is this so hard to understand? Is it something that happens to your perception of reality once you earn more than a million dollars a year?
Oh sorry, I meant a million dollars a month, of course. Though Gates at least gives billions to charity.
Anyway, this looks like another great idea from the people who brought you the talking paperclip and tried to force-feed us push technology. No wonder Apple is selling computers as fast as they can build them.
Why not just come out and say it, Bill?
"No one should make money but me!"
Gates' problem is that he measures success by the stock value of MSFT. I guess that's all he could do, and I don't know him so I don't mean to judge him, but that's where his problem is.
Ask if your customers are happy, not if your shareholders are.
Ask how people want their online media, and see if you can make a dime or two selling them software to help. Don't ask how you can keep someone else from getting people their media.
He seems to get it backwards, every time.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
How's that effort to keep the citizens of China from reading about "freedom", "democracy", and "human rights" going, Bill?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The iPod equivalent for movies is a laptop.
The Apple iTunes music store is successful because the iPod is sccuessful. Not the other way around. The fact that the iTMS has a good range and reasonable DRM just ensures repeat custom.
The only way Bill will lose out in this market is if he fails to get his software loaded on most laptops or he creates a truely crap product even by MS standards. I dont see what all the fuss is about.
is where it will fail. Right now i can pipe most things i watch onto the bedroom mini LCD. I dont imagine that an end to end DRM solution will like this much, never mind the video senders etc ppl use. how does this add up to an improved customer experence if i can only watch on approved hardware?
I don't think MS will be able to engineer a position where they are the only technology route to this new type of content. Intel are part of the cadre of vendors working on this, and with Apple working so closely with Intel now, any hooks into this new technology will also be available to Apple (subject to the appropriate licensing deal). And you can bet that Jobs isn't going to sit back on his laurels and watch this unfold without getting in on the act. MS will have to share this market with Apple at least. Though where this leaves the Linux distros I don't know.
The content providers have got it backward. They're not going to find their panacea with a completely-secure, uncrackable DRM scheme. They're going to start making lots more money when they work out two things:
This is not trivial. Remember that they're competing with P2P networks and BitTorrent at this point, since they didn't do anything when the technology was younger.
If the consumer feels like they're really losing something by buying a paid-for product as opposed to downloading, they will always go for the lower-priced product with greater actual value.
At this point, it looks like Apple did a good job of balancing all the pro's and con's. It still bothers some consumers who don't have an iPod, or want to use Linux, but they can always buy CD's. Or download MP3's. Whatever DRM model comes up, people will crack it. Some people will circumvent it. Some people will ignore it. The trick is the business model and pricing that convince the consumer to invest.
Of course, you'll never hear that from Microsoft. If the RIAA and MPAA wisened up to what's really going on, Microsoft wouldn't get a penny from them.
Jasin NataelTrue science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
Is anyone else nervous of the prospect of being forced to upgrade?
At least with video cards, (usually) you don't HAVE to have the newest DirectX capability. What if all of a sudden WMP decided that anything below 2GHz was too slow to play media and demanded that you upgrade?
Microsoft could pull a lot of bullshit with that, since the own the operating system. They could just choose to disable various video/sound APIs until you upgrade. And it would be completely legal for them to do so, that is, if the EULA applies.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Bill has to get away from the rent/toll view of what the end user wants. DVD sales and itunes seem to point to the end user wanting to pay for what they want - once per generation of format. If they can just get into the hardware and software and production and .......
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
So what does this mean to all of us? Why do companies keep coming up with DRM technology that everyone says are doomed to failer? Why does slashdot and other 'tech' sites contiue to retread the same stories about DRM again and again and again?
Well it could mean that there is a need for DRM technology in today's culture no matter how much I and alot of other people hate it.
Companies like Microsoft and others to bring up this technology to fit a niche that everyone is wants. The masses are accepting digitial and downloaded content the way every 'techie' has said they would for years. So companies come up with the easiest solution of DRM. Is DRM good? No, but it's al we have right now.
To many times I here the argument that DRM is doomed for failer because "it will be broken soon anway" or "Big Business is stupid and trying to control our lives"
The open source community has an important mission and critical need at this moment to fix this DRM problem now. The only way we will get away from all this DRM talk to to come up with a different solution to the problem.
DRM is here to stay until there is a better option.
So Gatesy is cosying up to the folks at HD DVD, all the more reason for the Slashdot crowd to get behind Blu-Ray who have chose the Java platform for their interactive content, and built ontop of the MHP standard.
What Gatesy really wants is people to choose HIS standard, rather than electing for something more open that lots of other companies support.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Hey, you've got DRM on your DVD's and MOST people barely notice it.
Except of course when they reach the FBI warning and can't fast forward past it. And as much as my wife bitched about the annoyance of having 8-10 tracks prior to the movie, she's come to accept it because.... EVERY DVD has it.
So down the road, when we're force to buy a new monitor with our new computer, well, we won't think much more about it than we do when we get a new phone with our cell plan.
The only way this is going to fail is if the companies can't hack out a good standard. If it becomes too much of a hassle, THEN it will fail. If my new monitor won't work on a different computer that's also new, or if I'm severely limited by monitor choice, that MIGHT make enough of a difference for me to choose another alternative. But I doubt it.
No one wants to buy into a crippled system and consumers are getting more savvy to these type of things. I hear enough complaints about the regional encoding in DVDs and players and the market found a way aroud that (region 0).
Sadly, while people are too lazy to vote/voice against things like DMCA, they still vote with their dollars.
iTunes is an example of a system that provides assurance to the music industry while being flexible enough for consumers to use - like being able to share music with friends.
Napster on the other hand is a more inflexible model and also seems like a traitor in some respects:
http://p2pnet.net/story/5521
The thing also with HD DVDs is that right now the DVD is an entrenched market that's good enough for most people. Most people don't even own the right TVs to make use of the enhanced resolution. So what is the incentive to move away from DVDs? Hell, VCR's had good enough resolution but the killer was the ability to go anywhere in the movie like a CD (and the smaller size of discs).
If people percieve that HD DVD's or PAIDFOR online downloads are severely restricted, what incentive do they have to move away from DVD?
Resolution they can't take advantage of/notice in most cases? 1 hour wait times until the hour long FBI warning goes away because it stops all those pirates? Compulsory previews?
Several people have already posted about the irony of Bill Gates complaining about another company's monopoly. But I find it amusing that after years of attempts to sell music online, by companies from all over the spectrum, people seem to have chosen Apple's iTunes for its sheer end-to-end simplicity without introducing annoying DRM that gets in the user's way. Because of that, the market has rewarded them with most of the business. In other words, if they are now a monopoly, it's due to customers choosing their product, unlike Microsoft's monopoly, which was created through exclusive deals with hardware manufacturers and technological lock-in.
rooooar
How about an end-to-end experience in which I "buy" a video, I "own" it, it is then "mine" to use as I wish, I can "keep" it as long as I like, I can "play" it over and over again, I can "fast forward" or "rewind" to any portion of it it at any time, I can use any player I like from any manufacturer, and I can "lend" it to a friend... ...you know, just like VHS?
Doesn't seem hard to grasp or difficult to implement.
Unless (gasp!) he's lying about the end-to-end user experience really begin their main concern.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"They're trying to learn lessons from their failure on the music side, where Apple blew them out of the water."
Remember now, this is the company head that penned a not-so-best seller titled 'The Road Ahead'. Billy missed the mark on all predictions, and there is no reason to see that changing any time soon.
Being run down by Apple shows they're nothing more than a deer in the headlights. Where's Bob? Isn't Clippy impressive? Remember the home video system named Tiger? How do you like being asked where you want to go today, instead of being given interesting options up front?
Gates and company want more out of consumer pockets, that's all. They're business model is finally being seen what it is by the masses, and the masses are moving on down the road...without Bob's help, by the way.
As soon as the pipes get thick enough, the cable companies and the FTTH telcos will just expand their "on-demand" services exponentially and slash prices. No need to update your PC. No need to activate or de-activate movies. Just aim the remote at your set-top box, rent the movie for a buck or two, and watch, and watch it again for as long as you want to keep it in the DVR part of your set-top box. Cheaper and more convenient than Netflix.
The market for watching movies "on the go," be it on a Notebook or PMP, is pretty small, actually. Apple's not interested in it, despite the instant market dominance they'd get from it were they to put a "Video iPod" on the market.
SoupIsGood Food
Take DRM, Microsoft isn't probably that interested in it, however the music and film industries are and Microsoft sees the fact that getting them on board will help to ultimately boost it's bottom line.
These music and film companies want to sell content to customers over the internet and to their PC, but they don't want any chance of potential piracy. Microsoft is activily courting their requirement, not because customers want to do less with their content, but because MS can turn to those companies and say "hey, you complained that computers were insecure, but Longhorn means you can sell secure content and we are here to help you achieve that".
Microsoft's biggest advantage is that when Longhorn comes out, it will be pre-loaded onto computers and when Bob gets downloadable video content for his PC, Frank will want some of that too although he'll find that XP just doesn't cut it and he has to upgrade.
Look to the money. There are huge amounts to be made in music and video downloads, however Microsoft has to include functionality (DRM) into their computers to be able to persuade those companies that their content isn't copyable otherwise they'll never dip their toes into that market. When they do (through the assurances of Microsoft that the PC can ensure secure content stays secure) I can only assume that they'll also have to use a MS subscription based service to serve that content and all the associated licence fees for wrapping their content into the MS DRM.
In short, including DRM in Longhorn opens up another market for Microsoft to dominate. They'll force people who want to have downloadable video to upgrade and also gain licencing fees from their DRM solution used by the content providers under the illusion that their content really is secure.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Apple has proven that (for music at least) large profit isn't to be had.
It hasn't?
Apple quarterly profit surges on iPod
iPod pumps Apple profit
Apple profits, revenue up again
Apple sings on iPod sales
You can say it's an iPod vs iTunes on money. But one is worthless without the other really. The same is true of the new competing DVD formats, either of which would be useless without the content.
Seems to me that MS is pushing the desktop OS into the TV os market with Windows Media Connect and XBox. Oh yeah, video is well within their sphere of domination dreams, even if it's licensing a dominant platform technology to a content provider... and really, that's what Gates is saying here. As for Apple, if you look at total profits at Apple, music just may be more profitable for them than computers in the future.
I8-D
"We're really having to work more closely with partners in the hardware industry and content industry, to really think through the whole end-to-end experience and make it better," Gates said.
Of course he means better for Microsoft's bottomline, not the consumer.
Well, why, iPodov, iPodski or iPodovski, of course! ;) Or, if it is a daughter, iPodova!
It looks unobstrusive. It run QuickTime in 1080i and iTunes. Its absolutely brilliant.
Option 1.) You can 'Tivo' your TV shows, strip out the ads, burn 'em to DVD and then watch at your leisure.
Option 2.) You can just buy he content on iTunes. And no friggin' lead-in ads either.
Case closed...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
He's talking himself into obsolence anyways. A year ago, I'd have said "fuck gates", but it's not even important anymore.
See, he's just talking big. Whatever scheme he comes up with will most likely suck, and the users, used to simplicity, will just ignore it and use something else. If some DRM scheme gets inbetween them and the music or videos they want, there are plenty of magazines out there telling them exactly how to use emule, bittorrent, or whatever the hype will be in 2012, when Longhorn and it's built-in DRM finally hit the market.
Users are becoming a market force, and if they don't like DRM, it will fall flat. The music industry doesn't control half as much as they like. The mainstream is all theirs, but there's so much music out there, if Britney isn't available, there's 500 others who are just as good.
It's not the same with movies, but there are already a ton of good indy movies, and besides you still have the cinemas where screeners are made to be posted online.
Gates is, once again, clawing at an emerging market he missed, hoping that with strong words and another vaporware announcement, he can stop the world moving for long enough so he can still hop aboard.
It's just that it ain't 1995 anymore, and even grandma down the street isn't so sure that Gates is a visionary anymore. Lots of people still look at him, but few stop for him anymore.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Why do people assume the next big thing is video-on-the-move? a.k.a son-of-iPod.
Who wants to watch movies on itty-bitty 5" screens? Whereas you can jog, work, eat & commute (not all at the same time) while listening to music, watching a movie is best done at home on a big screen.
Good luck to Microsoft, if they are in charge, at least the first iteration of any upcoming product will be an excellent lesson on how not to do things, if history is any guide.
The iPod equivalent for movies is a laptop.
Only for freaks.
The iPod works because the walkman already established that listening to music via headphones is cool.
No such equivalent exists in the movie world. On the contrary, the current trend is more towards home theatre systems. Initial attempts at mobility were aborted, because watching some half-assed hollywood crap on a tiny screen just sucks badly. On a big screen, you can at least enjoy the special effects.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org