Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Re-Brands PlaysForSure

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the always-a-pleasure-doing-business dept.

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.'"

10 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Plays for maybe? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Might play sometimes"?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  2. PlaysForSure + Certified for Windows Vista? by wellingtonsteve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    = PlaysForVista

    a subtle hint for the future? ie that you will need Vista to play anything new?

  3. No... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they originally just planned to drop the 'L'.

  4. Makes no sense by Tridus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Makes no sense by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ``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.''

      BEEP. You fail it!

      Compatibility was never the idea of PlaysForSure. First of all, PlaysForSure is DRM. DRM is all about making sure things _don't_ play for sure. Secondly, Microsoft introduced the Zune with a PFS-incompatible scheme, without so much as blinking.

      I don't know what exactly the strategy is, but it smells like sucking as much money as they can out of as many idiots who will fall for it. First, they bought into PlaysForSure. Then, Microsoft introduced the Zune...which would have made Zune DRM the tech to get, had it taken off. Now, those who bought into PlaysForSure is screwed because it isn't what Microsoft's _own_ player uses. And those who bought into Zune are screwed, because nobody uses the damn thing.

      And Microsoft, who brought them to this hell, is sitting on piles of money.

      And it became night. And it became day. Just another day in monopoly land.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  5. i for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    do not welcome our restrictive drm laden asshat overlords

  6. Re:I think you mean by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  7. Whazza works on XP? by amigabill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Plays For Sure by DieByWire · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...for small values of 'for sure.'

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  9. Re:Certified confusion by AJWM · · Score: 5, Informative

    MS pumped in a whole heap of money into Apple at one point to basically keep them solvent

    Uh, if you mean the paltry $128M or so that Microsoft paid Apple for some non-voting, non-dividend stock back in the 90s, Apple had a couple of $Billion in the bank at the time. AAPL stock price was tanking because of lousy management, not lack of cash.

    The money was actually a settlement of some lawsuits by Apple at the time, the "investment" thing was a face-saving figleaf that Gates required if Apple ever wanted to see another version of Office for Mac.

    And yes, there were plenty of Apple fanbois moaning about it and accusing Apple of selling out.

    --
    -- Alastair