Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Speaks Out Against Next-Gen DVDs
jZnat writes "Although we all know that Microsoft hates Blu-Ray, Bill Gates doesn't seem to like HD-DVD either. Primarily, it seems, because Mr. Gates believes media storage on hard drives is likely to be the default standard sooner rather than later. From the interview: 'Well, the key issue here is that the protection scheme under Blu-Ray is very anti-consumer and there's not much visibility of that. The inconvenience is that the [MPAA] got too much protection at the expense of consumers and it won't work well on PCs. You won't be able to play movies and do software in a flexible way.'"
Come on. 60 gigs in less space than a twinkie. I cant see this prognostication being that far off, except that its ironic he makes claims about being anti-consumer while pushing his own flavor of DRM down our throats. *sigh*
I'm a little tea pot.
What? Bill Gates thinks that the protection scheme under Blu-Ray is very anti-consumer? Is this the same Bill Gates who is responsible for the copy protection schema for Windows XP?
Maybe. At this time there's still a factor of 100 or so difference in price/byte and a big performance differenc, too. Flash is great for portability but it has a long way to go before being the method of choice for archival storage of videos. Hard drive is already there.
I was thinking much the same thing, but if it was done right this could be a big boost to something like Bittorrent.
I don't use ITMS, so I don't know what the file sizes are like for their video downloads, but if people were willing to wait a little longer I guess it could work for DVD type videos too.
There is nothing more practical than a good abstract theory.
Bill Gates can speak out against whatever he wishes. Until he considers who his audience is, it won't do very much.
The distributers of media want a format that is not-alterable. That way, there's not even the discussion of loss of data / corruption of data in transit. The consumers want a format that is not-alterable. If I buy a movie, I don't want to find that it's been "modified" rendering it useless, or worse yet, partially useful.
Sure, there is a market for downloading movies onto a hard drive, but realistically, hard drives fail, and I'll want a backup. DVD's may not be the best technology in the world, but it comes with a built-in feature, it is read-only. I don't want to be saddled with the responsibility for determining the validity of burnt DVDs, because I really can't do that for all of the films I intend to own. Especially when the previous expectation is for the PRODUCER of the content to produce copies of it for my consumption.
Any technology that is read-write could be overwritten, which isn't a pretty thought to consider when you just paid for the CONTENT on the media.
I wonder how CD player and disk sales are doing? Last I heard both were flat or declining. Once people realized that they wanted their music on an iPod, the CD became an added hassle. The same process will occur with DVDs.
But DVDs won't die for 10-20 years because some collectors will be willing to pay handsomely for the "Extended Platinum Director's Super Secret Cut Anniversary Re-release edition with matching book-ends." What will occur is that fewer B-list titles will appear on DVD because video-on-demand/pay-per-view/download services will offer a larger play list with lower distribution costs.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
It took me a bit of time after reading this article to figure out how to put this, but I think I know now what I'm going to say. I don't buy the idea that DVDs or discs of some sort will be replaced by hard disk space, regardless of what happened to music and iPods.
Back when my ebook was published, there was a lot of talk about how ebooks were going to supplant the print book. It hasn't happened, and there's a few reasons for that. A book that is bound with a spine is called a codex, and there really isn't a way to improve on it as a format. A codex doesn't require electricity, it is portable, and you can do just about anything you want with the book itself. It is completely self contained - the only equipment it is truly linked to in order to function are the eyes of the reader (and something with which to turn pages). An ebook, on the other hand, has copy protection issues to deal with, requires electricity of some sort to use, and if the electronic reader breaks down, the ebook becomes inaccessible, or possibly even lost. Is it any surprise that the numbers that constitute a bestseller for an ebook are a fraction of the what is required for a print book?
Now, take a DVD. So far, I think it's become about as close to what the codex is for books as is possible for movies (although it could be a bit smaller and contain more information). It has no moving parts, it's portable, and while it requires a player to watch the movie, the player breaking down will not damage the movie, or prevent me from taking it to another player.
If it becomes just a download onto a hard drive, a lot of these merits are lost. The movie is attached to the player, if the player goes down the movie can be lost, and there are a bunch of new digital rights issues to deal with (and let's face it, we're not doing that well with figuring out how to deal with digital rights right now). Also, once the movies are being stored on a hard drive, it becomes difficult to deal with them individually - let's say I want to loan one to a friend, or to take one with me when I travel out of town. In order to do that, I'd have to loan or take the entire hard disk.
No, I don't buy the idea of a format like the DVD being supplanted. It has always seemed to me that the most lasting technologies are those that offer the most utility in the simplest way. And, when it comes down to it, DVDs are pretty simple. They can certainly still be improved, but I honestly can't see a portable medium like the DVD being replaced by a medium like the hard disk.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
"Linux will win because people will crack the technology on a free os?"
I think you're oversimplifying what I wrote.
I don't know if Linux will "win" (whatever that means), but I think it might have an edge over Windows in this case. DRM-enforcing tools for playing Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs will appear for Windows, but naturally none will appear for Linux - certainly, no open source tools. Therefore, someone like DVD Jon will hack the DRM and make an open source library that any Linux program can use. At that point, a typical Linux installation will be capable of doing things with Blu-Ray discs that a standard Vista installation can't do.*
We even see this now with copy-protected CDs. The standard protection mechanisms prevent Windows users from ripping their music, but they do nothing to stop Linux and Mac users from ripping.
My suggestion is that Gates wants to avoid that scenario. He'd rather make it easy to get the data onto Windows and thus control what devices are DRM-authorized and which aren't. Make no mistake, Gates is pro-DRM. But he'd like it to reside in a domain he can control.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Just a correction, its not java based DRM , is Java based interactivity , the sameone most of the set top boxes and mobile device have used for years and that microsoft sees as a threat. Microsoft wants Blu-Ray to use their competing last minute iHD interactivity , that will be integrated with Vista , so that are his true motives And people , please stop confusing slow java applets with a robust and well executed Java languange.
"...the protection scheme under Blu-Ray is very anti-consumer and there's not much visibility of that. The inconvenience is that the [MPAA] got too much protection at the expense of consumers and it won't work well on PCs."
Then why are all the major PC manufacturers backing Blu-Ray instead of HD-DVD?
This is a USAian thing. Most viewers in the USA look at actors much more than directors, screenplay writers, or studios in picking a film. It's not world wide. As proof, I offer these points:
1. Watch the audience at a film, and see how many stay through part or all of the closing credits. With a little practice you can spot the guy who particularly liked the soundtrack, is staying to see the composer's name (and will probably buy a CD), and various things like that. These people will typically be less than 10% of the US audience. In Europe, the percentages are much higher, and it's an informed consumership, with more people who know the reputations of directors or studios, and what studios and producers append some funny outtakes or a bit of interesting stuff to the credits. One reason Jackie Chan caught on in Europe faster than USA, for example, is in Europe word quickly spread that there were comedy outtake bits after the credits of his early kung-fu films.
2. The USA has lots of support for pulicizing movies. Magazines like People exist largely to drum up more movie publicity. Movie stars that appear on late night TV ALWAYS make their appearances at an optimum time to plug a new film, and people like Conan O'Brien will even ham it up with the pre-scripted nature of the leading questions they ask to seet up the publicity anouncement.
3. If you can, find some classic US Movie posters and one sheets, and compare them with the same film's European release posters. You'll see plenty of European one-sheets where the big name actors are suddenly in much smaller type than the director, and words like "starring" get omitted. You'll also see more posters that show a panoramic scene or action scene from the film instead of a big floating head close-up. The only counter example I have ever seen is a few "David Hasselhoff" films in Austria.
All this leads to an overall point: One reason movie studios are overpaying "stars" and not making as much money on overseas releases as they would like is they reward the stars as though the effects of getting the right actor are going to be seen world-wide, when these effects are mostly largely confined to the USA. Part of this comes because the studios don't do a lot of publicity anouncements, posters, and newspaper clipping type things for the European and Eastern markets directly. They turn that stuff over to subcontractors who know what sells "over there', and then think those people are doing little more than translating the US campaign to a forign language.
Who is John Cabal?
Poory billy baby doesnt want to pay SONY royalties so he bad mouths Blu-Ray...
I don't see this as the issue. Here's why: Blu-ray Disc is invented by Sony and Philips. Compact Disc was invented by Sony and Philips. I didn't see Microsoft bad-mouthing CD-ROM.
That's complete nonsense. Yes, Sony and some other companies would have some ownership rights and licensing fees just like regular DVD or MP3 or any lots of other formats. But, "final say in all HD content distribution"? That's completely unfounded.
How did that post get rated a 5, "insightful"?