Being "light" is good and all, but it's slashdot that needs to "lighten up" on the MS bashfest. If this were truly a "lighten up" issue, then Slashdot would have derrogatorry icons for all sorts of topics. Instead it has such icons for only two topics: Microsoft and Windows.
The GP is right; the use of such icons (and only using them for MS and Windows topics) portrays explicit bias and diminishes any credibility slashdot has as a top tech site.
Microsoft can alway enhance Works file format support. Doesn't the latest version of Works come with Word 2002? Anyway, they're considering doing this for Works rather than Office because Works fits better with the functionality offered by web-based apps. Actually, Works pisses all over any web based suite already (hell, WordPad and TextEdit (bundled with Windows and OSX, respectively) piss all over any web based wordprocessor). Trying to port Office to AJAX would be insane. Works is more reasonable.
"You have to wonder how long shareholders will allow the company to "invest" in money-losing ventures."
LOL Give me a break; the "shareholders"? They're not in any position to "allow" or disallow investments. The "shareholders" can dump their stock if they don't like it. I'm sure some "shareholders" dumped their stock when Microsoft was wasting money with Windows 1.x, 2.x, and "Oh no! Windows 3.x, another money drainer! That's it! I'm out of here!!".
But MS isn't a growth stock anyway, it's now a dividend stock, and the percentage of money being poured into the investments is too small to make a difference in the dividends (but have the potential to greatly increase the dividends if the investments work; that's almost a no-lose proposition for dividend investors (not so for growth stock investors)).
That video is amusing, but you do know that it was made by MS themselves, right? They recognized that they need less cluttered packaging. The real Zune box is shown here (the bottom of the page): http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/zune/ default.mspx
You'll see that the box is decidedly "uncluttered".;-) (Actually, it's not surprising since the Xbox guys are doing the Zune, and Xbox 360's box is uncluttered too.)
The gadget sites sure are enamoured with the Zune.
Yes, the gadget sites are generating a lot of positive buzz for the Zune. But I don't know if they're really "enamoured" with it, or they're just playing it up because it's an attractive and well-backed alternative to the dominant player (like most computing sites are "enamoured" with Macs, for largely the same reason (apart from the Mac's genuine advantages)).
MS hasn't "broken" their DRM. PlaysForSure devices still work. Those that have a lot of WMDRM songs don't *have* to get a Zune. They can refuse to buy a Zune (since it doesn't play WMDRM songs) just like they can refuse to get an iPod for the same reason.
Zune is in a different division than PlaysForSure, and totally independent. You guys have been howling for MS to be split up so as not to abuse their "monopoly", well having independent divisions accomplishes the same, yet you're still bitching.
This is only the first of many Zune devices. They use this version to try to get a foothold in the market and make "Zune" a recognized brand name, then introduce future Zune's that aren't sold at a loss. They can do this without ever raising the price on the original Zune.
Yup. This is what MS has to do to get a toe-hold. Sell this unit at a loss in order to gain some market share and then unleash some more competitive models next year. And the year after that. etc.
We've seen this strategy before from Microsoft.
FWIW, I think MS would LOVE to suck Apple into a price war. Apple's profits absolutely rely on iPod revenue; MS's don't rely at all on Zune. Guess who can afford to lose more in a price war.
You keep referencing Zune, but this has nothing to do with Zune. Zune doesn't use WMP11; it has its own player that incorporates the Zune music store (a concept copied from iTunes/iTMS).
As for WMP11, I've not used it, but I know that in WMP10 "Copy protect music is unchecked as the default behavior." Others have posted that this is unchanged in WMP11.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. MS's DRM allows the content provider to set the DRM settings that he wishes to deploy. He can make the settings as draconian as he wants or has light as he wants, and can make them equivalent to Apple's FairPlay settings (which is in between the two extremes). (I think Microsoft's own MSN Music Store uses DRM settings that are roughly equal to FairPlay (except that songs bought from MSN can be used by many brands of players rather than just one).)
As for WMP11 lacking the ability to transfer licenses from one machine to another (if this is even true): WMP has had the ability to transfer licenses between computers without contacting the content provider's server (if the content provider set DRM settings to allow this), but that feature was always clunky. Most people just copy the files from the source machine to the target machine, then redownload the licenses on demand when playing the files on the target computer. This is the same behavior that iTunes has. iTunes has NEVER allowed for transfering licenses from one computer to another without phoning in to iTMS, so Apple fanboys can't badmouth WMP11 over this.
Lastly, nobody uses WMP to rip CDs with the DRM setting turned on (and the setting is off by default), so that's another moot point.
To the parent, MS spends a lot on usability testing; geeks and programmers are the LAST ones I'd ask to comment on UI. I'll take real world testing over what programmers/geeks have to say about UI, thanks.
If you want an example of a *real* closed system (well, getting very close), look at Macs. Apple controls the hardware, OS, and I'd guess 95% share of the apps usage share. Most Mac users loathe to buy any hardware of software not made by Apple, and Apple bundles much more with their hardware and/or OS than MS does with its OS.
I'm pretty sure that's a documentation error. I've been following IE7 development, and this is the first I've read or heard that protected mode is only available for Vista Enterprise. Where it says "Available only to users running Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista Enterprise", the "Enterprise" part shouldn't be there (both in the intro and the sidebar text). It should say "only available in Vista" (make it clear that IE7 doesn't use protected mode in XP), period; the different versions of Vista all use protected mode.
If anyone knows different, feel free to correct me, but as I've said, I've followed IE7 for a long time and I think I know of what I speak.;-) (Likely the documentor didn't have a clue what he was talking about.)
Yes, the link provided in the story, http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= 5, lists the market share of the various Windows versions, Mac, and 'other'. And the Aug 2006 stats show WinME+Win98 at 3.5%, and 'other' at 2.07%. But that 2.07% isn't all Linux, not even close.
If you look at another link on the same site, http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= 2, the share is broken down into much more detail (rather than throwing the low share OSes into 'other'), and Linux is listed at only 0.47%.
According to OneStat.com, Windows 98 and Windows ME account for about 4% of the total PCs in the world.
That's about 10 times more users than Linux has according to the same OneStat.com stats, so if Linux could pick those up, it would represent a huge increase. Sadly, it ain't gonna happen.
First, Win9x users couldn't care less whether MS "supports" the OS or not, so MS dropping support doesn't equate to an incentive to move to Linux. If they're still running Win9x, they're going to keep running it until they get a new computer. Second, even if they wanted to move to Linux, those still running Win9x are on hardware that is simply too weak to run today's Linux distros. Long gone are the days when Linux could boast the ability to run on 286es. Linux is just as resource hungry as XP, if not more so. Third, given the above, the only situation where a Win9x user would move to Linux is when they buy a new computer. But if they're getting a new computer, why wouldn't they just get the latest Windows version with it?
why would Microsoft 'abandon' their PlaysForSure ecosystem?
Well, MS isn't "abandoning" PlaysForSure. It will still exist. But it lost to Apple, plain and simple. They aren't using it for Zune because they're trying to follow Apple's example: Private (nonlicensed) DRM; single plays to buy online music; single device that plays that music. I think they'll still lose to iPod, but whatever.
If MS adopted FF, then instantely FF becomes the number one target, and, evidenced by FF's constant security updates, the holes are there for the exploiting.
Actually, Microsoft does believe that CC is a "real" license. They've released works themselves under CC (specs and accompanying code). (And they also believe that GPL is "real", that's why they take pains to stay clear of any GPL code (employees aren't allowed to even look at GPL code).)
Now, regarding the complaint that Zune's sharing feature violates the CC license, the solution is easy (from Microsoft's standpoint), and won't be what you guys are after (whatever that is; I don't know if you want the sharing feature removed altogether, or want it to be without DRM, knowing that such would lead to open piracy). Microsoft is merely making a device that allows sharing of songs through a mechanism that includes DRM, just as Roxio (for example) makes DVD/CD copying software that allows copying of optical discs. Roxio has a disclaimer, "This software is not to be used to violate copyrights"; MS will just add a disclaimer, "This device is not to be used to violate CC license, therefore it is not to be used to share CC songs". If the user then ignores that disclaimer, then it's on them, not Roxio or Microsoft. Problem solved.
"Sued for millions?" You have to prove damages. What are the damages here in monetary terms? Zero.
It's quite sad that you guys are calling for lawsuits that would result in one of two things: 1. Removing the sharing feature altogether (many of you would love that just to stick it to MS, but you'd be screwing over Zune's users in the process); 2. much more likely, MS would just add a disclaimer telling the user, "The sharing feature is NOT to be used to share CC files" (like the various DVD/CD copying programs have a disclaimer, "This software is not to be used to violate the copyright of protected works").
You guys will accomplish nothing significant with this ridiculous "suit".
I agree with the parent, but I'll add my own thoughts.
If Microsoft were to allow wireless sharing without DRM, then it would be used for open-piracy of songs, this is quite clear.
The purpose of the wireless sharing feature is to allow a friend to sample a song and then obtain it himself if he likes it (many slashdotters have tried to justify their own P2P piracy by saying that they're only doing it to sample the songs, and "I buy the ones that I like; I really do!!"). So, MS wraps a song shared via wireless in DRM that allows the song to be played for 3 plays/3 days (I think they should up this to 5, myself), and if the "sharee" likes it, he can obtain a non-DRM version himself. Now, for non-CC tracks, this might mean buying the CD or buying the song from the Zune store, etc. For a CC track, it would mean obtaining the free non-DRM version from wherever it's available.
Now, as for violationg the CC-license, the CC song is still available freely, and this sharing of CC songs might even help the song to get spread to others. If anyone does make a legal fuss over this, MS will simply put up a disclaimer to the user: "The wireless-sharing feature is NOT to be used to share CC songs", and that will be that.
I'm tired of the viewpoint that we must limit functionality for fear of malware. "Let's not do wireless sharing because it might lead to viruses!!" It's akin to giving in to terrorists. "Let's not allow drinks on a plane because a terrorist might mix them into a bomb!!"
Alright you simply have to explain this one. You'd rather give money to Microsoft over Apple. All of Slashdot is pulling up a chair, make it a good one!
I'll bite, just for the sake of conversation. A portion of the money given to MS eventually goes to Gates, which goes to philanthropy. A portion of the money given to Apple eventually goes to Jobs, none of which goes to philanthropy.
I do think that the uploader of a recording of a copyrighted broadcast is in the wrong (see below). However I don't have much problem with the downloader of the recording (if that makes me a hypocrite, so be it). However, I do NOT agree with you that it's "Fair Use". "Fair Use" applies to the fair use of copyrighted material that you *already* obtained legitimately, so how can the downloader claim "Fair Use"? I see no way a downloader can claim "Fair Use" regarding something he hasn't yet obtained. So I don't see downloading copyrighted broadcasts as "Fair Use"; I just don't think of it as "bad" in a practical sense.
As for the uploader: The uploader is definitely violating the copyright (at least for NFL games - "Reproduction and distribution of this broadcast without consent of the NFL and NBC is expressly prohibited - GRRRR!!!".;-)). You have implicit consent to record a broadcast yourself, but not to distribute or rebroadcast the recording. And you are allowed to loan that one particular recording to a friend (i.e. real "borrowing", where one copy is being passed back and forth among friends without extra copies being made so that at any given time, only one person has a copy (that being the original recording)). That being said, I don't have a problem with people copying recorded broadcsts among friends, aquaintences, etc. It might be illegal, but such small scale sharing, I don't care about. Uploading it for millions of strangers to copy or even stream (which is like a rebroadcast) is a different matter. This why YouTube is having to guard against uploading of copyrighted content.
Personally, I can see why uploading unedited material is illegal. But I would like the ability to upload edited copyright material (so one could upload short hilights, spoofs, mixes, etc (See Lessig's writings on the "mixing culture")). But it's tricky crafting a law prohibiting one while allowing the other.
If DVD burning is your bag, then try CinemaNow.com (I think their DVD burning is still in "beta"). And they allow downloading actual DVDs, not just movie vids, so you get the menus, deleted scenes, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"Lighten up"
Being "light" is good and all, but it's slashdot that needs to "lighten up" on the MS bashfest. If this were truly a "lighten up" issue, then Slashdot would have derrogatorry icons for all sorts of topics. Instead it has such icons for only two topics: Microsoft and Windows.
The GP is right; the use of such icons (and only using them for MS and Windows topics) portrays explicit bias and diminishes any credibility slashdot has as a top tech site.
Microsoft can alway enhance Works file format support. Doesn't the latest version of Works come with Word 2002? Anyway, they're considering doing this for Works rather than Office because Works fits better with the functionality offered by web-based apps. Actually, Works pisses all over any web based suite already (hell, WordPad and TextEdit (bundled with Windows and OSX, respectively) piss all over any web based wordprocessor). Trying to port Office to AJAX would be insane. Works is more reasonable.
"You have to wonder how long shareholders will allow the company to "invest" in money-losing ventures."
LOL
Give me a break; the "shareholders"? They're not in any position to "allow" or disallow investments.
The "shareholders" can dump their stock if they don't like it.
I'm sure some "shareholders" dumped their stock when Microsoft was wasting money with Windows 1.x, 2.x, and "Oh no! Windows 3.x, another money drainer! That's it! I'm out of here!!".
But MS isn't a growth stock anyway, it's now a dividend stock, and the percentage of money being poured into the investments is too small to make a difference in the dividends (but have the potential to greatly increase the dividends if the investments work; that's almost a no-lose proposition for dividend investors (not so for growth stock investors)).
That video is amusing, but you do know that it was made by MS themselves, right? They recognized that they need less cluttered packaging./ default.mspx
;-)
The real Zune box is shown here (the bottom of the page):
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/zune
You'll see that the box is decidedly "uncluttered".
(Actually, it's not surprising since the Xbox guys are doing the Zune, and Xbox 360's box is uncluttered too.)
Yes, the gadget sites are generating a lot of positive buzz for the Zune. But I don't know if they're really "enamoured" with it, or they're just playing it up because it's an attractive and well-backed alternative to the dominant player (like most computing sites are "enamoured" with Macs, for largely the same reason (apart from the Mac's genuine advantages)).
MS hasn't "broken" their DRM. PlaysForSure devices still work. Those that have a lot of WMDRM songs don't *have* to get a Zune. They can refuse to buy a Zune (since it doesn't play WMDRM songs) just like they can refuse to get an iPod for the same reason.
Zune is in a different division than PlaysForSure, and totally independent. You guys have been howling for MS to be split up so as not to abuse their "monopoly", well having independent divisions accomplishes the same, yet you're still bitching.
It's been reported (though not confirmed) that Toshiba makes the Zune hardware; that the first edition of the Zune is a rebranded Toshiba Gigabeat plus wifi plus ties to the Zune store.
See:
Zune revealed by FCC as "Toshiba 1089"
iPod Wars: Microsoft and Toshiba Team Up Against Apple
If so, then you're right that MS is using foreign labor. Though whether Toshiba uses sweatshops like Apple does is open to question.
I got this from the above cited gizmodo article that says Zune will be $229, where one of the comments says
FWIW, I think MS would LOVE to suck Apple into a price war. Apple's profits absolutely rely on iPod revenue; MS's don't rely at all on Zune. Guess who can afford to lose more in a price war.
You keep referencing Zune, but this has nothing to do with Zune. Zune doesn't use WMP11; it has its own player that incorporates the Zune music store (a concept copied from iTunes/iTMS).
As for WMP11, I've not used it, but I know that in WMP10 "Copy protect music is unchecked as the default behavior." Others have posted that this is unchanged in WMP11.
Sorry, but that's bullshit.
MS's DRM allows the content provider to set the DRM settings that he wishes to deploy. He can make the settings as draconian as he wants or has light as he wants, and can make them equivalent to Apple's FairPlay settings (which is in between the two extremes). (I think Microsoft's own MSN Music Store uses DRM settings that are roughly equal to FairPlay (except that songs bought from MSN can be used by many brands of players rather than just one).)
As for WMP11 lacking the ability to transfer licenses from one machine to another (if this is even true):
WMP has had the ability to transfer licenses between computers without contacting the content provider's server (if the content provider set DRM settings to allow this), but that feature was always clunky. Most people just copy the files from the source machine to the target machine, then redownload the licenses on demand when playing the files on the target computer. This is the same behavior that iTunes has. iTunes has NEVER allowed for transfering licenses from one computer to another without phoning in to iTMS, so Apple fanboys can't badmouth WMP11 over this.
Lastly, nobody uses WMP to rip CDs with the DRM setting turned on (and the setting is off by default), so that's another moot point.
Here is the location of the Monad (Windows Power Shell) blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/powershell/default.aspx
To the parent, MS spends a lot on usability testing; geeks and programmers are the LAST ones I'd ask to comment on UI. I'll take real world testing over what programmers/geeks have to say about UI, thanks.
If you want an example of a *real* closed system (well, getting very close), look at Macs. Apple controls the hardware, OS, and I'd guess 95% share of the apps usage share. Most Mac users loathe to buy any hardware of software not made by Apple, and Apple bundles much more with their hardware and/or OS than MS does with its OS.
I'm pretty sure that's a documentation error. I've been following IE7 development, and this is the first I've read or heard that protected mode is only available for Vista Enterprise. Where it says "Available only to users running Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista Enterprise", the "Enterprise" part shouldn't be there (both in the intro and the sidebar text). It should say "only available in Vista" (make it clear that IE7 doesn't use protected mode in XP), period; the different versions of Vista all use protected mode.
;-) (Likely the documentor didn't have a clue what he was talking about.)
If anyone knows different, feel free to correct me, but as I've said, I've followed IE7 for a long time and I think I know of what I speak.
Yes, the link provided in the story, http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= 5, lists the market share of the various Windows versions, Mac, and 'other'. And the Aug 2006 stats show WinME+Win98 at 3.5%, and 'other' at 2.07%. But that 2.07% isn't all Linux, not even close.
= 2, the share is broken down into much more detail (rather than throwing the low share OSes into 'other'), and Linux is listed at only 0.47%.
If you look at another link on the same site, http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid
That's about 10 times more users than Linux has according to the same OneStat.com stats, so if Linux could pick those up, it would represent a huge increase.
Sadly, it ain't gonna happen.
First, Win9x users couldn't care less whether MS "supports" the OS or not, so MS dropping support doesn't equate to an incentive to move to Linux. If they're still running Win9x, they're going to keep running it until they get a new computer.
Second, even if they wanted to move to Linux, those still running Win9x are on hardware that is simply too weak to run today's Linux distros. Long gone are the days when Linux could boast the ability to run on 286es. Linux is just as resource hungry as XP, if not more so.
Third, given the above, the only situation where a Win9x user would move to Linux is when they buy a new computer. But if they're getting a new computer, why wouldn't they just get the latest Windows version with it?
why would Microsoft 'abandon' their PlaysForSure ecosystem?
Well, MS isn't "abandoning" PlaysForSure. It will still exist. But it lost to Apple, plain and simple. They aren't using it for Zune because they're trying to follow Apple's example:
Private (nonlicensed) DRM; single plays to buy online music; single device that plays that music. I think they'll still lose to iPod, but whatever.
If MS adopted FF, then instantely FF becomes the number one target, and, evidenced by FF's constant security updates, the holes are there for the exploiting.
This does not affect IE7:6 .aspx
;-))
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/09/15/75673
(Just for edification.
Actually, Microsoft does believe that CC is a "real" license. They've released works themselves under CC (specs and accompanying code). (And they also believe that GPL is "real", that's why they take pains to stay clear of any GPL code (employees aren't allowed to even look at GPL code).)
Now, regarding the complaint that Zune's sharing feature violates the CC license, the solution is easy (from Microsoft's standpoint), and won't be what you guys are after (whatever that is; I don't know if you want the sharing feature removed altogether, or want it to be without DRM, knowing that such would lead to open piracy). Microsoft is merely making a device that allows sharing of songs through a mechanism that includes DRM, just as Roxio (for example) makes DVD/CD copying software that allows copying of optical discs. Roxio has a disclaimer, "This software is not to be used to violate copyrights"; MS will just add a disclaimer, "This device is not to be used to violate CC license, therefore it is not to be used to share CC songs". If the user then ignores that disclaimer, then it's on them, not Roxio or Microsoft. Problem solved.
"Sued for millions?" You have to prove damages. What are the damages here in monetary terms? Zero.
It's quite sad that you guys are calling for lawsuits that would result in one of two things: 1. Removing the sharing feature altogether (many of you would love that just to stick it to MS, but you'd be screwing over Zune's users in the process); 2. much more likely, MS would just add a disclaimer telling the user, "The sharing feature is NOT to be used to share CC files" (like the various DVD/CD copying programs have a disclaimer, "This software is not to be used to violate the copyright of protected works").
You guys will accomplish nothing significant with this ridiculous "suit".
I agree with the parent, but I'll add my own thoughts.
If Microsoft were to allow wireless sharing without DRM, then it would be used for open-piracy of songs, this is quite clear.
The purpose of the wireless sharing feature is to allow a friend to sample a song and then obtain it himself if he likes it (many slashdotters have tried to justify their own P2P piracy by saying that they're only doing it to sample the songs, and "I buy the ones that I like; I really do!!"). So, MS wraps a song shared via wireless in DRM that allows the song to be played for 3 plays/3 days (I think they should up this to 5, myself), and if the "sharee" likes it, he can obtain a non-DRM version himself. Now, for non-CC tracks, this might mean buying the CD or buying the song from the Zune store, etc. For a CC track, it would mean obtaining the free non-DRM version from wherever it's available.
Now, as for violationg the CC-license, the CC song is still available freely, and this sharing of CC songs might even help the song to get spread to others. If anyone does make a legal fuss over this, MS will simply put up a disclaimer to the user: "The wireless-sharing feature is NOT to be used to share CC songs", and that will be that.
I'm tired of the viewpoint that we must limit functionality for fear of malware. "Let's not do wireless sharing because it might lead to viruses!!" It's akin to giving in to terrorists. "Let's not allow drinks on a plane because a terrorist might mix them into a bomb!!"
I'll bite, just for the sake of conversation.
A portion of the money given to MS eventually goes to Gates, which goes to philanthropy.
A portion of the money given to Apple eventually goes to Jobs, none of which goes to philanthropy.
I do think that the uploader of a recording of a copyrighted broadcast is in the wrong (see below). However I don't have much problem with the downloader of the recording (if that makes me a hypocrite, so be it). However, I do NOT agree with you that it's "Fair Use". "Fair Use" applies to the fair use of copyrighted material that you *already* obtained legitimately, so how can the downloader claim "Fair Use"? I see no way a downloader can claim "Fair Use" regarding something he hasn't yet obtained. So I don't see downloading copyrighted broadcasts as "Fair Use"; I just don't think of it as "bad" in a practical sense.
;-)). You have implicit consent to record a broadcast yourself, but not to distribute or rebroadcast the recording. And you are allowed to loan that one particular recording to a friend (i.e. real "borrowing", where one copy is being passed back and forth among friends without extra copies being made so that at any given time, only one person has a copy (that being the original recording)). That being said, I don't have a problem with people copying recorded broadcsts among friends, aquaintences, etc. It might be illegal, but such small scale sharing, I don't care about. Uploading it for millions of strangers to copy or even stream (which is like a rebroadcast) is a different matter. This why YouTube is having to guard against uploading of copyrighted content.
As for the uploader:
The uploader is definitely violating the copyright (at least for NFL games - "Reproduction and distribution of this broadcast without consent of the NFL and NBC is expressly prohibited - GRRRR!!!".
Personally, I can see why uploading unedited material is illegal. But I would like the ability to upload edited copyright material (so one could upload short hilights, spoofs, mixes, etc (See Lessig's writings on the "mixing culture")). But it's tricky crafting a law prohibiting one while allowing the other.
If DVD burning is your bag, then try CinemaNow.com (I think their DVD burning is still in "beta"). And they allow downloading actual DVDs, not just movie vids, so you get the menus, deleted scenes, etc.