Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Re-Brands PlaysForSure
mikesd81 writes "Information Week writes about a licensing change intended to 'beat Apple at their own game'. They're going to use a combination of branding and DRM, and replace the "PlaysForSure" logo with a "Certified for Windows Vista" tag.'The certification is used to guarantee compatibility with Microsoft's copyright-protection software and is the same logo used for the company's Zune player. The problem, however, is that music and video bought from the online Zune Marketplace won't play in their native format on other devices, including those that will carry the new logo.'"
"Might play sometimes"?
This guy's the limit!
So now we're going to have Certified for Windows Vista on things that have nothing to do with Vista? Will it work on XP? That's going to be really confusing for their consumers (Microsoft doesn't have customers) especially since that logo will be found on software and hardware.
I also don't know what music and music players have to do with Vista other than the DRM. They should rename it: "Plays only on Vista, bitches" and then say like... bitches.
Apparently the front page is now also infected with DRM since I can't post anything and it keeps logging me out.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Well, of course the Zune is incompatible with it and vice versa...Zune always used different DRM. Dunno why. Comparing the two is an odd choice, to say the least. Bad summary, imo.
Microsoft Branding ...
'Only a Barbarian believes that his tribes customs are the laws of nature'
= PlaysForVista
a subtle hint for the future? ie that you will need Vista to play anything new?
How is Microsoft doing something utterly incomprehensible supposed to "beat apple at their own game ?"
Certified for USING Windows Vista?
Given that only Windows could handle PlayForSure, and that Microsoft was unlikely to let any other OS developers have the necessary licenses, maybe this is clearer. Maybe its clearer that this form of lock-in requires Microsoft Windows. Either way, its DRM and its nasty.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
...they originally just planned to drop the 'L'.
some letters:
-tex
-en
ie, playtex4ensure
I could also imagine this as a password on an AOL disc...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
How does this play with a former "PlaysForSure" device that is intended only for XP? What about the Zune (which, AFAIK, still doesn't work with PlaysForSure media, but *does* work with Vista?
Seriously, are MS intending to hand Apple a computer media format monopoly on a silver platter?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
This move makes no sense. PlaysForSure devices/stores are not compatible with Zune devices/stores, but they'll both carry the same logo? This defeats the entire point of the PlaysForSure branding in the first place: that any device and any store with the branding will work together.
Somebody at Microsoft has lost their minds.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
If Microsoft wants to win customers from Apple, they should just drop DRM all together. If Amazon and Apple (iTunes+) can do it, why not Microsoft?
At some point, the lawyers prevail over the marketers.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
As in "It plays for me. The problem must be on your end."
Hey, why shouldn't MS copy the ancient excuse of every tech support on the planet for their products? They copy everything else.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wma files are just awful, it's absolutely hit or miss whether even my laptop will have the right license files to play one. I've didn't succeed in getting my playsforsure player to do anything (until I found fairuse4wm).
The original text should have read ProfitableForMicrosoft, because that's the only meaning I can infer from the original PlaysForSure program.
The closest thing that comes to defining the spirit of the phrase "PlaysForSure" is the MP3 format, because it will play on the highest percentage of hardware in existence.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Riiiiight
Becuase Apple's game was to promote the iPod as being exclusively for one platform, and having multiple incompatible DRM formats. Funny, I though Apple did the opposite, and (unusually for Apple) made the iPod cross-platform, and implemented fairly simple DRM that is consistent across all its products.
... and then they built the supercollider.
do not welcome our restrictive drm laden asshat overlords
Are they going to apply it to the countless terabytes of unencumbered mp3, FLAC, and avi files that get released constantly on bit torrent et al? Unless they find a way to retroactively apply DRM and convince everyone to start using it for everything there's no way their dream of a Vista requirement for media play back could ever be a reality. This is only going to apply to the--very small--group that buys music from stores that use this particular DRM. If it's really as bad as people make it out to be, then even those people wont be customers for long. MS can hide behind technobabble and buzz words but in the end when a customer just can't get his damn music to play how they want, they're going to move on to something that actually works.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Make you buy a bunch of DRM-infested music
Hold on there.. They're not making you buy anything.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Thats not a bug, thats a feature! Microsoft is trying to get people to use greener, less CPU-intensive codecs like MP3 to save power and the environment.
Kidding aside, what is Microsoft's business plan with the Zune??? Judging from the vast numbers of deeply-discounted Zunes being dumped into the market (I bought mine for $80 on Woot), they can't possibly be making money on the hardware. The software is so terrible that I only use it when my music collection changes substantially, and their music store certainly doesn't have much going for it right now. What is the "attachment rate" for Zune store purchase? Its probably shockingly low.
The whole thing reminds me of Xbox 1 (and the 360 to some extent) where Microsoft deeply discounted the hardware hoping to make money on the software, but then didn't because their projections of attachment rates were completely off and the hardware was selling at just too great of a loss.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
I use XP. I'm not interested in Vista. Certified for Vista doesn't make me fell like I can use this stuff... I'll also assume it won't work on my ipod. What about my Sansa with Rockbox? Still dunno. I feel safer _avoiding_ "Certified for Windows Vista" items.
stupid enough to license this technology? I mean, this'll have to wake up any remaining hold-outs.
Do you have ESP?
If the PlaysForSure sticker didn't make me buy a Zune I'm sure that a Certified for Vista sticker is going to do the job.
The part that shows how little M$ cares about its users is that they didn't provide a method to convert the old PFS licensed music to whatever stupid DRM format they switched to. Instead they (in effect) said "Psych! All of you loyal customers who spent their hard-earned dollars on music that used old DRM system are hosed. Screwed! Think we care? Tough luck, suckers! Oh, and by the way, buy a Zune. Don't forget, Apple sucks!"
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
sed -e 's/MS/Apple/g' -e 's/Vista/iTunes/g'
Here's to my $30 2GB Hong Kong-made MP3 player that mounts under "/mnt/player"!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
...for small values of 'for sure.'
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
Because of how it uses the brand of the operating system and the word "certified." For instance iTunes can run on Windows Vista...does it have an opportunity to become "certified?" Or can only Microsoft software receive certification?
This treads pretty close to the definition of tying--after all their copy-protection system is just one of many that can run on Windows Vista, and technically it is a distinct system, separate from the core operating system.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If you buy music to play it on your Zune (if you even had one, that is), you won't be able to play them anywhere else on that format, right ? Well if this is the case, and given that not all users know how to convert music from format to another, do customers have to buy the same music multiple times ? If so, that sucks. But hey, it's not a big deal, it's Micro$oft !
The only thing that should be certified are Vista users.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Well, it sorta makes sense. How this could happen, anyway. Remember, the Zune team was supposed to be this upstart group inside Microsoft, with fresh ideas and no restrictions. The goal was to be an iPod killer.
To do this, they had the freedom to do their own DRM scheme. They wanted this, and needed it, since they had to be able to have Zune specific features like, ahem, squirting. If this were licensed technology, Zune would be another non-iPod player. They wanted it unique, so there would be no other licensees and they could differentiate their product from everything else.
This was a choice made by the Plays For Sure guys, who should have known better. They should have realized this was a dumb move, or been more aware of Zune so as not to confuse this loyalty. But, natch, they screwed it up. I bet we'll see a retraction or a further rename. Why?
Because partners, those that license the technology, just lost value in their investment. With the consumer confusion, expect Sandisk and others to start calling Microsoft about it.
I like the way Microsoft markets Apple iTunes - by continually stepping on their own wanker!
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Microsoft P.O.S., "Plays, Only Sometimes", well, and that other thing that P.O.S. stands for. It's kind of like getting a two-fer... er... sort of.
A straight up unladen MP3. THAT plays for sure.
"Pay for Sure"
Does MicroSoft have a long wanker or no shins?
I drank what? -- Socrates
How is Microsoft doing something utterly incomprehensible supposed to "beat apple at their own game ?"
The very phrase itself is part of the incomprehensibility, thus everything is going to plan.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One of the aspects that was mentioned in this article that is rarely talked about is ease of use. Apple has gone out of their way to make it difficult for the user to mess up. The system is fully integrated because Apple has full control over all aspects of the system. It is easy for them to make changes in the itunes store, modify the itunes software, and change the ipod firmware to reflect the changes. They can do all of this internally and push it out to their customers when they connect online next. Microsoft does not have this level of control. They merely control the DRM through the media player. If the store wants to offer something new, they have to get both Microsoft and the vendors of the mp3 players on board to make the change universal. If Microsoft wants to make a change in how media player works, they have to get both the stores and the mp3 players on board. If the mp3 players want to make a change in functionality, they have to work through the channels of their "partner" companies to make it happen. Thus change is slow, and not all stakeholders will make the change. This introduces incomplete functionality and causes problems for consumers.
The mp3 player vendors want to sell new units, not patch old units to allow them to play new content. Media stores want to sell more content and if that means bringing a new product to market, all the better for them to make more money from! Microsoft is stuck in the middle. Microsoft want to help the mp3 player vendors sell more units because Microsoft gets royalties on every mp3 player sold with their DRM on it. Microsoft wants to help the media stores sell more media because Microsoft gets royalties on every piece of media encrypted in their DRM. Thus Microsoft profits from the use of their DRM. Microsoft does not want record labels to stop using DRM because it would hurt Microsoft. Conversely, Apple does not licence their DRM. Apple's DRM is a drag on their business model. Apple would rather sell songs without DRM because that means less code for them to maintain, and less overhead on the servers which encode the songs with DRM with customer's specific user key. Apple wants record labels to stop using DRM because DRM hurts Apple as much as it hurts the customer.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
For Apple's DRM'd music, on an iPod, iPhone, or registered computer (Mac/Windows) running iTunes.
How is this worse than Microsoft's play?
What's confusing about Microsoft has done here is called PlaysForSure "Vista Compatible" while ignoring the fact that it also works on XP and whatever else. They also call Zune music "Vista Compatible" but the two formats are not compatible with each other.
Or with music players that most of the world owns.
We all know Zune and PlaysForSure are incompatible.
Can other hardware makers now abandon their PlaysForSure efforts and jump on the Zune DRM bandwagon, or will Microsoft not license it to them?
Of course, now that both are called "Windows Vista Compatible" this idea is harder to explain... I can see it now:
"Can we stop making Windows Vista Compatible players, and instead adopt the new Microsoft DRM scheme to make our players Windows Vista Compatible?"
I'm not sure about "beating Apple at their own game." With all the confusion around this renaming and whatnot, it sounds more like Microsoft is trying to beat Sun Microsystems at *their* game. This renaming/rebranding is almost as confusing as all the renaming/reversioning of Java ...
It's less confusing than the other names they've used.
Also, why are companies still using this? Microsoft basically said "fuck you" to all content providers using Janus with the introduction of the Zune, and now it seems they're going even more to kill it.
Shhh! Don't say that! You're bottoming out the arguments of so many rabid anti-**AA fanbois right now!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
My take on it is that Microsoft's offerings are worse because they called them "PlaysForSure" when, in fact, they don't play for sure. Now Microsoft is now rebranding PlaysForSure to be Zune-like, but it won't play on a Zune? I feel like that's worse, not better. Apple calls theirs "FairPlay", which at least hints at the goal of the software, even if you disagree on what "fair" means.
Obviously, don't pay for either one.
Evidently, they aren't even convincing anyone to buy anything. Do you know anyone who has ever bought a DRM music file? I don't, not even one person. The only DRM I know of that was successful in the market is DVD CSS, but I think that only really survived because it was broken early on. Dude, I'm not worried about DRM. Eventually, it will go away, because consumers don't buy it (literally).
I should say, though, that everyone should stop buying DVDs until they drop the CSS. I've never bought a DVD.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Give up!! 'nuff said
I think apple have sold one or two songs on itunes that have drm....
They're trying to beat Apple at making Apple's product look better!
I now feel even more repulsion towards it, congratulations MS!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The Computations of AdamR
http://www.adamreyher.com
Apple:
1. Apple creates proprietary iTunes schema, as none such existed in the market. Sticks with it for ten years. Starts to transition to universal MP3's.
Microsoft:
1. Microsoft creates proprietary PlaysForSure schema in response to apple. Partners with lots of companies to push as an proprietary but licenceable standard. Sells PlaysForSure tracks on MSN.com.
2. Microsoft abandons PlaysForSure, destroying the standard. Microsoft instead sells the Zune, with zune-specific music tracks.
3. Microsoft sticks PlaysForSure and Zune DRM together as "Certified for Vista." Except that things which are all "Certified for Vista" will play with Vista, but won't actually play with eachother. And it will play with non-Vista things. Right.
So the music player with an estimated 2% of the market is paired with an OS that has 6%. Good luck with that!
The ______ Agenda
Aw, the poor things. It looks like they wanted just one thing they could flat-out guarantee was compatible with Vista. Well, sometimes, anyway.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The alternate message is that you need assurance that it'll work with Vista at all. You know, many of your old programs and drivers won't.
Also, you forgot to mention that part of the PlaysforSure specification allows media companies to decide when their media will expire off of your computer. So, while an iTunes song I bought 10 years ago will still be playable forever, a song I bought from media company X using PlaysforSure might expire tomorrow...
This is a big distinction, and a huge part of the reason why PlaysforSure never took off. You really don't know if your media will playforsure at all now do you?
This is also part of a growing trend I've noticed with shady companies and governments naming products and laws the exact opposite of what they really are... Clear skies initiative that allows pollution? Healthy forest initiative that means we can clearcut large sections of the forest? Playsforsure that means it really won't play for sure?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I bought a few DRM'd music tracks from iTunes, because I wanted to encourage the digital download business model. When I started wanting to play music on an unsupported device (a Nokia phone in this case), I stopped. Now they sell DRM-free music, I've started again (and bought more DRM-free music than I bought DRM'd, so hopefully their statistics will show people are willing to pay for freedom).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
In pretty much every other market, 'don't compete with your customers' is enshrined in business 101 rules. What is it about Microsoft that lets them launch a product that competes with their customers and have their customers continue to purchase from them? Why do the likes of Creative still license PlaysIfYou'reLucky from Microsoft after the launch of the Zune? Why do all of the partner stores continue to use it after the launch of the Zune store?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'd sooner take interest in the pool that forecasts the length of time between this plan being executed and someone in Microsoft's Marketing department being executed... what a freakin' crock o' stink
disclaimer: I've been using Ubuntu exclusively at home for about 9 months now, and am currently burning an ISO of 7.10 that I'll use to carve out a Linux partition on my work PC (I love my PC support folks, they let me set up my environment any way I want); this has now become a crusade -- screw you Mssrs. Gates, Ballmer, et al...
you really expect me to be able to express my opinion of what's so fucked up in this world in 120 characters or less?