Will Component (YPbPr) video outputs be disabled by Windows Vista's content protection?
Similar to S/PDIF, Windows Vista does not require component video outputs to be disabled, but rather enables the enforcement of the usage policy set by content owners or service providers, including with respect to output restrictions and image constraint.
So will we be seeing a list of system requirements published on HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs in the future like we do with games? To play this movie you will need:
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Home Ultimate
DVI or HDMI video support with HDCP
A non-revoked DVI driver (version 2.11 or higher) or a non-revoked HDMI driver (version 1.53 or higher)
an authorized media player (such as Windows Media Player 10)
If so, I hope Microsoft's goal here is to stop people from playing HD content in computers. I doubt most people will go through that kind of trouble to watch a movie.
Of course, it may just be the case that your HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs just aren't guaranteed to play in your computer's HD-DVD and Blu-Ray drives, and may not work without warning. Like some CDs.
Probably, but what would they do? sue? void the contract? pull all their music from iTunes? They wouldn't be able to sell protected, digital music to iPod owners. It probably costs less to send the police and your lawyers after the small guy who makes the CDs.
Actually, what DJ Drama has been doing is not sampling. He makes compilations of music, continuously mixed, with additional scratching and effects, and MC freestyles.
An example of his work is Gangsta Grillz 8. One would assume there were seven before that, not counting other mixes. Play the sample of track 6. It should sound familiar.
I'm a little unsure of my opinion of the whole thing. Typically, to sell and distribute a compilation of music, one must license each of the songs on a compilation. This includes mix CDs. Even with electronic compilations produced by independent artists, containing music by independent artists, the music on the CD is licensed. I believe Richie Hawtin, whose mixes manipulate the original songs so much that they might be unrecognizable, licenses songs and credits the producers of all of the original songs. Many of the songs aren't even available on CD outside of his mixes. On the other hand, the artists approve, and requiring approval for every use of every song goes against the core of hip-hop culture. (sampling / derivative use)
But yeah, Drama was definitely not under the radar. Many of the artists on his mixes would not have been distributed on eMusic otherwise, because the majors don't distribute via eMusic. He was too big to not license. He definitely had to see this coming.
The price of your Sony Ericsson example is without the discount from your cell phone company for signing a 2 year contract. According to Macworld, "Apple has no plans to release a version of the iPhone without a service contract or one that is unlocked." The prices announced for the iPhone include a 2 year contract. As for the Windows Mobile phones, you're just wrong.
Apple's DRM sucks _the_least_. IS it there? yeah. Does it impact 99% of the people that use the iTunes store? Not really.
You mean not at the moment. I know it's unfathomable, but years down the road, if another company made a better (sexier, easier to use, less expensive, or more reliable) portable music player (or just provided better customer service), and people decided not to buy iPods, it certainly would. Anti-trust suits take a long time. Better to start early.
Okay, you're stuck with Apple's iPodlike devices. So what? They're really good.
Of course they are. My 40 GB, 4th gen iPod has only suffered complete hardware failure 2 times since I bought it (2 years, 3 months ago). Cost of iPod: $400. Cost of extended warranty: $60. Cost of repairing it today: $40 - $140. Total cost of owning for a device owning an iPod for 2 years: $230/yr, not including music. Of course, I am an "Apple Hater". (I could call you a "Fanboy", but that doesn't make my argument any stronger)
Apple has managed to negotiate with folks that can't be negotiated with. Further, they were able to do so in a way that greatly benifits the customer. In doing so, they managed to jumpstart the current, DEVELOPING, download industry.
Does that entitle them to use anti-competitive business practices to keep their position in the digital audio / digital audio player markets? Will the market continue to develop? By comparison, Microsoft "jump-started" the home computer market in the 1980s. Are they entitled to break their competitor's software on Windows to gain/keep market share now?
Do the permit renting the music? No. and I can see why: Rentals rely on the end user getting complacent and 'forgetting' that $15 a month fee. Once it gets past their notice, and they fall into complacency, the bult of that $15 is free money to the vendor. (Assuming they don't get bought or go out of business, or whatever)
Because Apple has decided that subscriptions are not the best business model, and you agree; no one else should be allowed to offer it? I prefer eMusic's model (it costs me $.22/song if I don't forget to download my music) to iTMS ($.99/song). If eMusic wanted to protect their music, I wouldn't be able to play it on my iPod. Apple doesn't support other DRM, and they won't license their own to competitors in the music market.
DRM may be an unnecessary evil,
And in some cases, Apple continues to add DRM, even when other companies don't. Tell me again that it's only because the labels make them.
I can't say that alternative has _ever_ acted with the consumer's interests in mind
Which alternative is that? I get the feeling you are assuming Microsoft is the only alternative in this market. Even if that is the case, it's generally accepted that in a free market, competition is in the consumers' interests. Although PlaysForSure was a technological failure, Microsoft's licensing of it to multiple companies who make digital audio players and sell digital audio files did promote competition in those markets. It might have also locked people into the Windows OS (vendors, at least), but hey Microsoft helped "jump-start" the market, remember?
I've got absolutely NO qualms with sticking with Apple. Their products mesh extremely well with my needs.
It appears you are missing a "big distinction". That is that not every consumer has the same needs and values as you do.
The big problem with FairPlay is that it allows Apple to use their monopoly in the digital audio player market to maint
There's a significant difference between a digital audio file and a DVD. One is a physical object, the other is a bunch of bytes. Is the difference between a WMA, MP4, and OGG the same?
While I'm not generally inclined to defend Sony, I think a $400 digital audio player (such as an iPod) that won't play digital audio files is significantly more offensive. It's more like a Sony DVD player that won't play Warner Bros DVDs.
Considering Outlook is distributed as part of Office, doesn't it make sense that it use an HTML rendering engine distributed with Office? Isn't this a step toward giving people the option of an IE-free Windows?
I think you're missing something. It seems with digital distribution of content (as opposed to opening a CD / record store), you need a contract with the labels to sell their music. The article suggests that the motivation to drop DRM is to put pressure on Apple. They want to charge more for songs. Apple says "no" to variable pricing. The labels need new options or at least leverage against Apple. But with the iPod only supporting Fairplay, which Apple will not license, the labels options are limited:
distribute content via iTMS with DRM and still have access to iPod, but be at the mercy of Apple with pricing
distribute content via someone else with DRM and have no access to iPod (so far has not been successful)
distribute content via someone else without DRM, have access to iPod, and be able to charge what they want
The labels may not have to let Apple sell DRM-Free files for $.99. The Norah Jones song that Yahoo sells for $1.99 without DRM is still sold with DRM on iTMS. Frankly, if the labels' goal is to sell their music for more $$, I can't see why they would allow Apple to sell DRM-Free files. They might just drop iTMS all together. The labels had a monopoly on distribution of CDs. Apple took it from them with online distribution. They want it back.
The real questions are: Will the labels even take the risk of dropping DRM on a wide scale? Will DRM matter to end-users? Is it worth an extra $1.00 per song to be DRM-Free? What if the songs were priced equally? Which is more valuable, "the experience" of iTMS + iPod, or choice? If another store sold music that would play on the iPod, would they be able to compete? Do they need iTunes itself, or just the ability to easily transfer the songs to the iPod?
Yet there are, to my knowledge, exactly 0 songs / tv shows / movies / games that can be purchased on the iTMS without DRM. The DRM / no DRM decision won't probably be made by all labels simultaneously, so what would it take for Apple to enable DRM-free downloads? Do you think the current environment is just a result of them never being asked to distribute music without DRM? I'm sure they have many agreements with many labels. How big will the player have to be to make it happen?
I was wondering about how well it might work with the IceLink dock connector I have in my car for the ipod. The connector is attached to an adapter runs a program on the ipod to let the CD changer commands control the iPod, so I can control it from the steering wheel. Even if the iPhone has a dock connector, I fear it won't work given the differences in the architecture of the OS.
Do you use an adapter like this? If so, let us know when you buy the phone if it works in the car like this.
I find it interesting that MS suggests using it to store Apple Time Machine backups. My fiancee really wants a Mac laptop, but she's not technical, and the ability to keep all the backups in one place with redundancy is appealing. Off site copies of the backups are another issue. As for media, I like the ability to stream to the Xbox 360 via Windows Media Connect (although they really need to improve the media player on that thing). In addition, I need to be able to easily:
get music on my 40 GB iPod (which is usually full to capacity)
share the music with a mac
I used to keep my media on a headless box filled with hard drives and controlled remotely on the network, but the network lag made it difficult to manage the music library. If I could run a client program on the box that would expose a shared iTunes library and sync with the iPod, I'd be sold. Well, I might need to be able to hack Windows Media Connect to get it to support other video codecs too.
I haven't seen anything about the ability to install software on it, and the article suggests it doesn't have USB ports (while the screen shot shows an external hard drive in the list of drives). I don't believe MS would add any special features to support iPod, especially now that they are pushing the Zune, but I can't see them getting too far selling simplicity of a media server without some type of support for the most widespread portable media player on the market. Without extensibility, this device is just a backup solution / file server. Of course, that may be enough.
My point was simply that if the device let you watch "whatever (you) want, whenever (you) want", then it would be quite appealing. As it stands now, the iTMS does not allow you (easy) access to whatever you want. It may have a large selection of TV shows available, but not enough to eliminate the "mucking around" with buying (or renting) DVDs. The iTMS movie selection is limited.
Another thing to consider when comparing it to the iPod + iTMS success is that many people are accustomed to getting television via a cable/satellite subscription model. They turn on the TV and the content is there. They watch a television show once, and have no need for it afterwards.
With Apple TV, according to the "How it Works" section on their website, you make a purchase from the iTMS and download it to your computer, then Apple TV syncs, then you watch it on your TV. Each of those steps will take time.
How is that simpler than turning on the TV and changing the channel?
As for the "whenever you want" part -- again, consider the download time. And AFAIK, most TV shows aren't available on iTunes when or before they air on TV. Cable companies offer DVR service and video on demand.
Bottom line is, while Apple is capable of providing simple and integrated solutions to problems, that tends to happen when they start with the problem and design the solution. Here they took an existing solution (iTMS) and made it available on the TV.
Of course, if the media player will let you fast forward and rewind songs, it will at least be better than the Xbox 360's.
Its the ultimate device allowing people to turn on their tv and watch whatever they want, whenever they want without all the mucking around with the recording and buying DVDs as long as Apple can distribute it.
I wouldn't assume that you will be able to use a keyboard with a device because it supports Bluetooth. My crippled Verizon RAZR V3 supports Bluetooth, but only for connecting headsets. Even transferring images to a PC is disabled. I believe the device has to support the correct profiles for the use you're describing. As far as I know, supported Bluetooth profiles have not yet been announced.
All I would say is if its meant to be a phone, they better have done some serious durability testing on the thing. My phone has been all kinds of abused during normal use. A cracked touchscreen on a $900 phone would be real nice. Especially considering how shitty apples warrantees and returns policies are (try getting an ipod repaired out of warranty for instance, they will only ship a brand new or referb at brand new prices). Nah, after working with apple hardware and their policies Im not sure im interested in apple hardware anymore, no matter how flashy or trendy they may be.
Amen to that! Based on the price/storage capacity, I'm already having a *very hard* time justifying a purchase like this, no matter how shiny it is. But given my experience with Apple's customer service / warranty / extended warranty, I could not even consider it unless I could get a *real* warranty from another company. Even if your iPod is under warranty, you can only get phone support during the first quarter of your warranty ($50/call after that or $60 for the "2 year" extended warranty), and you have to pay them $30 to ship you a box to return the thing after the first 6 months of the warranty. So if the device doesn't "just work", you pretty much have to buy the extra warranty, which costs about the same as the 3 year warranties from anyone else.
In my case, my 40 GB 4th gen iPod failed once after 9 months and again after 27 months (hard drive clicking, with a completely black screen the second time). The second time it was 3 months out of its extended warranty. I took it to the "genius" at the apple store and he told me that he "had the power to give me a replacement", but he wouldn't. The best he would offer the business card of a local repair shop, so I could pay another $100 or $200 to get it repaired.
I know this is flamebait to all the mac zealots, but seriously: any other company that treated its customers like that would be flogged on Slashdot.
So... Anyone know if Cingular offers replacement plans on their phones? It doesn't seem like I'll be able to buy one at Best Buy, and it is a 1st Gen device (with over 200 patented features). Bound to be some kind of problems.
This may be kind of off topic, but I followed the link to an article summary on Techdirt, which incidentally links to 2 other article summaries on Techdirt and one on another news site The one about South Korea and Japanese mobile providers deciding to standardize had a "Full Story" link leading to a 404.
I know we're not all inclined to RTFA, but shouldn't there at least be a FA?
That's only partially true. While the phones use a standardized USB port for connection, some of them (at least the Verizon RAZR V3C and V3M) will give a message "Unauthorized charger" if you hook up a generic mini USB charger. There may be some kind of handshake required that only the $30 Motorolla chargers are guaranteed to perform.
The article summary only mentions standardization of ports. I wonder if software control mechanisms will be eliminated as well...
Slashdot Mirror
Too many grammatical errors. The post is bound to start an flame war about proper use of spelling and grammar on /.
It's also theft. Did you miss the part where he lifted it from his employer?
- Windows Vista Home Basic
- Windows Vista Home Premium
- Windows Vista Business
- Windows Vista Home Ultimate
- DVI or HDMI video support with HDCP
- A non-revoked DVI driver (version 2.11 or higher) or a non-revoked HDMI driver (version 1.53 or higher)
- an authorized media player (such as Windows Media Player 10)
- video card, sound card, etc...
Please visit http://www.sonypictures.com/ for a complete list of supported hardware and software.If so, I hope Microsoft's goal here is to stop people from playing HD content in computers. I doubt most people will go through that kind of trouble to watch a movie.
Of course, it may just be the case that your HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs just aren't guaranteed to play in your computer's HD-DVD and Blu-Ray drives, and may not work without warning. Like some CDs.
Probably, but what would they do? sue? void the contract? pull all their music from iTunes? They wouldn't be able to sell protected, digital music to iPod owners. It probably costs less to send the police and your lawyers after the small guy who makes the CDs.
Actually, what DJ Drama has been doing is not sampling. He makes compilations of music, continuously mixed, with additional scratching and effects, and MC freestyles.
An example of his work is Gangsta Grillz 8. One would assume there were seven before that, not counting other mixes. Play the sample of track 6. It should sound familiar.
His stuff is on eMusic.
I'm a little unsure of my opinion of the whole thing. Typically, to sell and distribute a compilation of music, one must license each of the songs on a compilation. This includes mix CDs. Even with electronic compilations produced by independent artists, containing music by independent artists, the music on the CD is licensed. I believe Richie Hawtin, whose mixes manipulate the original songs so much that they might be unrecognizable, licenses songs and credits the producers of all of the original songs. Many of the songs aren't even available on CD outside of his mixes. On the other hand, the artists approve, and requiring approval for every use of every song goes against the core of hip-hop culture. (sampling / derivative use)
But yeah, Drama was definitely not under the radar. Many of the artists on his mixes would not have been distributed on eMusic otherwise, because the majors don't distribute via eMusic. He was too big to not license. He definitely had to see this coming.
The price of your Sony Ericsson example is without the discount from your cell phone company for signing a 2 year contract. According to Macworld, "Apple has no plans to release a version of the iPhone without a service contract or one that is unlocked." The prices announced for the iPhone include a 2 year contract. As for the Windows Mobile phones, you're just wrong.
If you want a phone with a comparable screen resolution (480x640 compared to iPhone's 480x320), try the Neo1973 OpenMoko phone, available in February 2007, priced at $350 unlocked. (It even has a touchscreen)
Or you could just admit that people who buy Apple want to pay more than they have to for a computer/music player/phone.
Apple launched the iPhone in 2004? Seriously, you're comparing prices of 2 year old technology to something getting launched in 6 months.
It should be cheaper today.
For a more appropriate comparison, consider the Samsung Blackjack (launched Nov 13, 2006) at $199 or the Motorola Q (announced in June 06) at $199. At least the iPhone will have been launched within a year of those.
mod parent up! The thing's not even for sale yet. Are we going to see something about the iPhone every day from now until June? God, I hope not.
You mean not at the moment. I know it's unfathomable, but years down the road, if another company made a better (sexier, easier to use, less expensive, or more reliable) portable music player (or just provided better customer service), and people decided not to buy iPods, it certainly would. Anti-trust suits take a long time. Better to start early.
Of course they are. My 40 GB, 4th gen iPod has only suffered complete hardware failure 2 times since I bought it (2 years, 3 months ago). Cost of iPod: $400. Cost of extended warranty: $60. Cost of repairing it today: $40 - $140. Total cost of owning for a device owning an iPod for 2 years: $230/yr, not including music. Of course, I am an "Apple Hater". (I could call you a "Fanboy", but that doesn't make my argument any stronger)
Does that entitle them to use anti-competitive business practices to keep their position in the digital audio / digital audio player markets? Will the market continue to develop? By comparison, Microsoft "jump-started" the home computer market in the 1980s. Are they entitled to break their competitor's software on Windows to gain/keep market share now?
Because Apple has decided that subscriptions are not the best business model, and you agree; no one else should be allowed to offer it? I prefer eMusic's model (it costs me $.22/song if I don't forget to download my music) to iTMS ($.99/song). If eMusic wanted to protect their music, I wouldn't be able to play it on my iPod. Apple doesn't support other DRM, and they won't license their own to competitors in the music market.
And in some cases, Apple continues to add DRM, even when other companies don't. Tell me again that it's only because the labels make them.
Which alternative is that? I get the feeling you are assuming Microsoft is the only alternative in this market. Even if that is the case, it's generally accepted that in a free market, competition is in the consumers' interests. Although PlaysForSure was a technological failure, Microsoft's licensing of it to multiple companies who make digital audio players and sell digital audio files did promote competition in those markets. It might have also locked people into the Windows OS (vendors, at least), but hey Microsoft helped "jump-start" the market, remember?
It appears you are missing a "big distinction". That is that not every consumer has the same needs and values as you do.
The big problem with FairPlay is that it allows Apple to use their monopoly in the digital audio player market to maint
There's a significant difference between a digital audio file and a DVD. One is a physical object, the other is a bunch of bytes. Is the difference between a WMA, MP4, and OGG the same?
While I'm not generally inclined to defend Sony, I think a $400 digital audio player (such as an iPod) that won't play digital audio files is significantly more offensive. It's more like a Sony DVD player that won't play Warner Bros DVDs.
Considering Outlook is distributed as part of Office, doesn't it make sense that it use an HTML rendering engine distributed with Office? Isn't this a step toward giving people the option of an IE-free Windows?
- distribute content via iTMS with DRM and still have access to iPod, but be at the mercy of Apple with pricing
- distribute content via someone else with DRM and have no access to iPod (so far has not been successful)
- distribute content via someone else without DRM, have access to iPod, and be able to charge what they want
The labels may not have to let Apple sell DRM-Free files for $.99. The Norah Jones song that Yahoo sells for $1.99 without DRM is still sold with DRM on iTMS. Frankly, if the labels' goal is to sell their music for more $$, I can't see why they would allow Apple to sell DRM-Free files. They might just drop iTMS all together. The labels had a monopoly on distribution of CDs. Apple took it from them with online distribution. They want it back.The real questions are: Will the labels even take the risk of dropping DRM on a wide scale? Will DRM matter to end-users? Is it worth an extra $1.00 per song to be DRM-Free? What if the songs were priced equally? Which is more valuable, "the experience" of iTMS + iPod, or choice? If another store sold music that would play on the iPod, would they be able to compete? Do they need iTunes itself, or just the ability to easily transfer the songs to the iPod?
Yet there are, to my knowledge, exactly 0 songs / tv shows / movies / games that can be purchased on the iTMS without DRM. The DRM / no DRM decision won't probably be made by all labels simultaneously, so what would it take for Apple to enable DRM-free downloads? Do you think the current environment is just a result of them never being asked to distribute music without DRM? I'm sure they have many agreements with many labels. How big will the player have to be to make it happen?
I was wondering about how well it might work with the IceLink dock connector I have in my car for the ipod. The connector is attached to an adapter runs a program on the ipod to let the CD changer commands control the iPod, so I can control it from the steering wheel. Even if the iPhone has a dock connector, I fear it won't work given the differences in the architecture of the OS.
Do you use an adapter like this? If so, let us know when you buy the phone if it works in the car like this.
- get music on my 40 GB iPod (which is usually full to capacity)
- share the music with a mac
I used to keep my media on a headless box filled with hard drives and controlled remotely on the network, but the network lag made it difficult to manage the music library. If I could run a client program on the box that would expose a shared iTunes library and sync with the iPod, I'd be sold. Well, I might need to be able to hack Windows Media Connect to get it to support other video codecs too.I haven't seen anything about the ability to install software on it, and the article suggests it doesn't have USB ports (while the screen shot shows an external hard drive in the list of drives). I don't believe MS would add any special features to support iPod, especially now that they are pushing the Zune, but I can't see them getting too far selling simplicity of a media server without some type of support for the most widespread portable media player on the market. Without extensibility, this device is just a backup solution / file server. Of course, that may be enough.
My point was simply that if the device let you watch "whatever (you) want, whenever (you) want", then it would be quite appealing. As it stands now, the iTMS does not allow you (easy) access to whatever you want. It may have a large selection of TV shows available, but not enough to eliminate the "mucking around" with buying (or renting) DVDs. The iTMS movie selection is limited.
Another thing to consider when comparing it to the iPod + iTMS success is that many people are accustomed to getting television via a cable/satellite subscription model. They turn on the TV and the content is there. They watch a television show once, and have no need for it afterwards.
With Apple TV, according to the "How it Works" section on their website, you make a purchase from the iTMS and download it to your computer, then Apple TV syncs, then you watch it on your TV. Each of those steps will take time.
How is that simpler than turning on the TV and changing the channel?
As for the "whenever you want" part -- again, consider the download time. And AFAIK, most TV shows aren't available on iTunes when or before they air on TV. Cable companies offer DVR service and video on demand.
Bottom line is, while Apple is capable of providing simple and integrated solutions to problems, that tends to happen when they start with the problem and design the solution. Here they took an existing solution (iTMS) and made it available on the TV.
Of course, if the media player will let you fast forward and rewind songs, it will at least be better than the Xbox 360's.
I wouldn't assume that you will be able to use a keyboard with a device because it supports Bluetooth. My crippled Verizon RAZR V3 supports Bluetooth, but only for connecting headsets. Even transferring images to a PC is disabled. I believe the device has to support the correct profiles for the use you're describing. As far as I know, supported Bluetooth profiles have not yet been announced.
In my case, my 40 GB 4th gen iPod failed once after 9 months and again after 27 months (hard drive clicking, with a completely black screen the second time). The second time it was 3 months out of its extended warranty. I took it to the "genius" at the apple store and he told me that he "had the power to give me a replacement", but he wouldn't. The best he would offer the business card of a local repair shop, so I could pay another $100 or $200 to get it repaired.
I know this is flamebait to all the mac zealots, but seriously: any other company that treated its customers like that would be flogged on Slashdot.
So... Anyone know if Cingular offers replacement plans on their phones? It doesn't seem like I'll be able to buy one at Best Buy, and it is a 1st Gen device (with over 200 patented features). Bound to be some kind of problems.
Isn't that like asking "Why can't OSX run on any PC?" or "Why won't my songs from iTunes play on any portable media player?"
It doesn't surprise me at all.
dude. you're putting the bottles back on the wall. that makes no sense at all...
This may be kind of off topic, but I followed the link to an article summary on Techdirt, which incidentally links to 2 other article summaries on Techdirt and one on another news site The one about South Korea and Japanese mobile providers deciding to standardize had a "Full Story" link leading to a 404.
I know we're not all inclined to RTFA, but shouldn't there at least be a FA?
That's only partially true. While the phones use a standardized USB port for connection, some of them (at least the Verizon RAZR V3C and V3M) will give a message "Unauthorized charger" if you hook up a generic mini USB charger. There may be some kind of handshake required that only the $30 Motorolla chargers are guaranteed to perform. The article summary only mentions standardization of ports. I wonder if software control mechanisms will be eliminated as well...
I can't speak to the "values" of the books, but the "movies" "star" Kirk Cameron. How's that for "value"?