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.'"

Comments

Customers

[under_score]

I expect that ultimately customers will decide that DRM and related tech will fail. There will always be new companies and new products that can break into a market that is underperforming for people's needs and wants. Particularly in the age of blogging, this type of breakthrough is getting easier: access to publicity is much much lower. The big companies like MSFT etc. all are probably quite afraid of this... and therefore trying to come up with anti-competitive schemes. Some of these schemes are technology based, some feature based, and some legislative. Only the legislative schemes should be feared. All the others can be fairly easily defeated by consumers. As for the legislated schemes of protection, even those can be circumvented by sufficiently interesting innovation. The problem there is keeping ahead of the legislative encroachment. In the software world, open source is a great way to do this. Hardware-wise it's a bit more difficult.

Re:Customers

[Shag]

I don't think the fate of DRM is as black-and-white as you seem to think it is. That's more likely to be true for the really draconian DRM systems, but "gentler" ones are, in my opinion, a lot more like a simple curb.

Yes, you can drive your car off, or over, a curb. But if there's a nice ramp cut in the curb where people intend for your car to go, it's easier to go that way, and most people will.

If someone is determined to defeat DRM - or any other technological solution to any perceived problem - they probably will. But people who have that mindset going in are a pretty small percentage of the population. Even on Slashdot, I don't think they're the overwhelming majority. And other people will acquire digital content by means other than grabbing DRMed versions and defeating the DRM, I think.

(Honestly, I can't imagine why someone would break DRM, since so many things are probably available in non-DRMed formats on P2P networks anyway.)

Re:Customers

[jonwil]

In order for downloads of video (movies & TV) to be a hit like the iTunes Music Store was, they will need to have the following attributes:
1.They must either be DVD quality (including all the extras) or they must be cheaper than the equivilant DVD (to make up for the loss of quality)
2.They must be available at the same time as the DVD release (if not earlier)
3.They must be in a format (or convertable to a format) that you can record onto something (be it a recordable DVD or a recordable HD-DVD/BluRay disk) and play on your TV setup (be it a home theater system with a big TV or a smaller TV and a simple cheap DVD player)
I for one dont want to watch movies or TV on my computer, I want to watch on my TV sitting in my comfortable chair.

Bit Torrent and other P2P services are popular with people because of:
A.Availability. For those in america, its a great way to get TV shows not playing where you live (including e.g. foriegn TV shows american networks arent playing or shows only on pay TV services you cant get or cant afford)
And for those abroad, its a great way to get TV shows that just havent reached your country yet (anyone who lives in australia knows how great BitTorrent etc is for downloading all those Yank shows that we just wont see because no local network is prepared to show them or whatever)

B.Cost. Its very hard to beat free. Even though it is illegal, a lot of people dont care and download anyway (especially since a lot of people believe that just downloading without actually "sharing" anything means they cant get caught and that only the big fish with a large number of shared files are going to be targeted)

and C.Range. You can get stuff on BitTorrent that just isnt available on DVD (and isnt going to be), things like reality TV and stuff.

For a download service to work, it would have to come as close as possible to the availability of shows as BitTorrent and other P2P services do (if you cant download it from the download service until 12-18 months after it has aired, people will continue to download from BitTorrent which may well have it 12-18 hours after it first airs). It would also have to have better quality files than what you find on BitTorrent (the files available on the download site for current shows/movies could probobly be produced directly from the same digital master files that are used to produce the over-the-air copies and the DVD masters which means they are as close to perfect as the codec and bitrate used on the files will allow). Also, a download service could offer things DVD cant, including series where the cost to release DVDs is considered too much given likely sales (the cost to make files available on the download service would be cheaper than the cost to make DVDs) and also things like reality TV or sports games which just dont make sense to put on DVD.

The iTunes Music Store works because:
1.You are gauranteed to be able to get the song you want (and not a "fake" garbage song file or a song thats not what you want or getting no search results because no-one has the song you want shared)

2.In a lot of cases, you can preview the song to make sure its what you are looking for before you commit to purchasing it)

3.Once you have the song, you can put it onto an iPod, an iTunes phone (the new one with ITMS supoprt) or a completly normal no copy protection anywhere audio CD (which can be played on pretty much anything that can read audio CDs)

And the songs are cheap enough too.

In short, it has none of the disadvantages of P2P (risk of being caught by the RIAA, lack of sources for the song you want, poor quality rips, fake or garbage song files, songs that arent what the filename claims they are) whilst coming as close to the advantages of P2P (low cost and unrestricted files) as its possible for a legal download service to get.

Re:Laughable

[MaestroSartori]

I don't think MS wan't to be in on the content-provision side, Apple seem to have proven that (for music at least) large profit isn't to be had.

I think that MS just want to be the sole software technology provider to multiple hardware/content providers, that way they can leverage their desktop OS monopoly to the fullest extent when exacting license fees from several small companies, rather than having a larger corporate entity which could dictate terms to MS.

An approach that's doomed to failure

[@madeus]

I fully expect Microsoft will take the same sort of route they have always taken, by focusing almost exclusively on selling their vision to content producers, rather than focusing on making a product that appeals to the market (and watching as the content producers hop on board).

Apple have been successful with their music store because of course they have made it easy for novice users to access, purchase and manage content. The Microsoft media player is in stark contrast a hideously confusing application as far as most people are concerned, and is an excellent example of why Microsoft will not succeed unless they radically change their approach (which on past form, I do not expect they will).

Getting buy-in from publishers is essential in the long run, but by pandering to them to the extent Microsoft have done (in an attempt to get them on-board), all semblance of a marketable product has been lost, because the focus has been on building a product they want to produce, rather than on one people actually want to buy.

Even if all the major content production companies vow to get behind a Microsoft devised solution, consumers will just largely ignore it and continue to rely on established ways of getting content (either legal DVD's or illegal P2P downloads) until they are offered something they are actually comfortable using.

You have to wonder what's wrong with Microsoft's corporate structure when, with their vast resources and many talented people, they can't even build a useable media player (let alone content delivery and management system). It's so tragic, it's funny.

Steve Jobs, Pixar and video

[theolein]

While Bill Gates is thrashing about in frustration because the online music market didn't bend over and do the usual market submissive act to Microsoft, I'm pretty sure he's going to lose the next market, video, as well. Bill Gates' biggest problem is that he hasn't realised, in 10 years of OS dominance, what ease of use is. Sit Mac OSX and WindowsXP next to one another, and note the difference after a short while. He just doesn't get it.

The same thing with DRMed WMP files and the really bad interface on WMP, where Microsoft thinks it is doing the users a favour by allowing all sorts of skins to be used. Compare that with iTunes' simplicity.

Steve Jobs may be an arrogant prick who deserves a kick in the balls by all the people he's insulted over the years, but he's right on the money when it comes to understanding what the market and above all, the consumer, likes: simplicity.

99% of the world neither cares nor knows what DRM is or how their phone or iPod works. All they really want to do is simply put some songs on the device and press play. They don't care about wireless, bluetooth or whatever. The iPod's simplicity is why it stole the market from Creative, not because of features, and Creative's executive are still moaning about how their devices have more features.

The video device from Apple will be the same, and will fit in just as easily with Apple's online store as the iPod does.

And Microsoft will still be flapping about like a fish out of water, and Bill Gates will still be promising to defeat Apple.

Re:The trouble with the black market

[Doctor_Jest]

While it is true that some bootleg sales networks in the rest of the world are run by criminal elements, not everything is done that way. Quite a few smaller operations in certain countries that have the average monthly income of your coffee budget for a week exist because the "legal" barrier of entry is beyond the reach of a majority of the population. I'd rather they not get exposed to the crapola being forced out of hollyweird's ass, but I guess they're really curious. As for software, I'd rather they use Linux or BSD and ditch the Borg. (But I can only speak for me.)

Whether or not someone agrees with their model is another matter (it's indeed a grey area in terms of pricing and whatnot.) It is technically infringement, but it cannot possibly be lost revenue, since the people could not afford it to begin with. If we elevate their livelihood to near-US levels, they will be able to afford the goods, but there will just be another tiny country of poor people waiting in the wings to be forced to make goods at pennies a day. And the cycle perpetuates itself.

I'm just saying it's not always Russian mafia and the Triads who are making any money off of pirated goods. I'd rather see P2P and other means undercut these pirates by making it available free instead. :) Take their market for illegal goods out from under them.

Re:The trouble with the black market

[SimianOverlord]

I see. Because the police cannot accurately price their seized ecstasy, it naturally follows that buying pirated DVDs and giving your money to criminals is the correct and proper thing to do.

You can complain about copy protection all you want. But you must recognise it is there to cut into black marketeers profits, linux users and other consumers are just the collatoral damage of that war.

Re:Son of iPod?

[agraupe]

The problem with the iPod-sized movie player is that people don't want to watch movies on a small screen. You can already watch DivX movies easily on a PocketPC. Now with CF Cards coming down in price, you can watch them at decent quality. I have been there and done that. Why didn't I like it? Well, it was small, and you can't watch a movie like you can listen to music. With a movie, you have to pay some attention, which pretty much rules it out as an on-the-go activity. What would be interesting is something like the iPod for movies, that plugs into an already existant screen.

Re:Son of iPod?

[kgruscho]

Because clearly you'll believe?

My tablet is 7 months with 0 infections. About half the time it is on it has a net connection.

Desktop, same deal. Both Windows XP.

I haven't had a virus or worm since about 1993, it was a trojan in a nice DOS file manager called valet.

Now it would be worse if I were running a server, but if you are planning on running a server on a tablet, clearly you are not a typical user.

Re:My take... my rant.

[Alsee]

This isn't about DRM, or about technology. No, this is about the law. This is about bad law. Bad law that shackles the free market and distorts and defeats natural free market forces. Natural free market forces that will mitigate and repair and problems involving DRM, once innocent noninfringing people no longer face prison. Then Microsoft and the content industries and anyone else is free to use any and all the DRM they like, any system they like, and natural market forces will be free to mitgate and repair any problems that arise.

Just click my current SIG and help fix the problem. The DMCRA amends the DMCA to say that innocent noninfringing people shall not be imprisoned. Pretty simple really. And if you dissagree, if don't want to support the DMCRA, well ok... then please explain why you believe innocent noninfringing people SHOULD be put in prison?!?

-