Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bill Gates Swears Vow Against 'Son of iPod'

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the no-sequels-for-me dept.

Microsoft 393

Future Linux-Guru writes "The LA Times is running an article on Microsoft's efforts to preempt any single manufacturer from dominating the online video market. Among the scarier revelations is the development of AACS, a new already approved security system designed to prevent piracy on HD DVDs, which subjects users to forced upgrades." From the article: "Whichever way it shakes out, Gates vows not to play the victim in 'Son of iPod.' After learning a hard lesson in the digital music business, 'we're really having to work more closely with partners in the hardware industry and content industry, to really think through the whole end-to-end experience and make it better,' Gates said. 'That's where we've done our mea culpa. We are fixing that.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Son of iPod? (4, Funny)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092141)

So, what's the son of iPod going to be called?

e-Sus?

The theme of the article... (2, Funny)

gunpowda (825571) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092171)

The Microtunes store: 30 pieces of silver per track.

Re:Son of iPod? (1)

FHMyles (835127) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092172)

Where is the Moderated Funny?

Re: Son of iPod? (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092178)


> So, what's the son of iPod going to be called?

O'iPod?

MaciPod?

Ben iPod?

iPodson?

Re: Son of iPod? (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092312)

I prefer iPodovich. Has a better ring to it.

Re: Son of iPod? (1)

mocm (141920) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092360)

bin iPod
KipiPod

Re:Son of iPod? (5, Insightful)

matt21811 (830841) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092201)

The iPod equivalent for movies is a laptop.

The Apple iTunes music store is successful because the iPod is sccuessful. Not the other way around. The fact that the iTMS has a good range and reasonable DRM just ensures repeat custom.

The only way Bill will lose out in this market is if he fails to get his software loaded on most laptops or he creates a truely crap product even by MS standards. I dont see what all the fuss is about.

Re:Son of iPod? (1)

rcamera (517595) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092230)

i would think the ipod equivalent for movies was a portable dvd player...

Re:Son of iPod? (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092241)

Portable CD-Player -> Portable DVD-Player
HDD Mp3-Player -> HDD DivX-Player

Re:Son of iPod? (1)

matt21811 (830841) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092257)

You are correct.

But to play internet sourced movies, it needs a NIC, a hard drive and a decent prcessor. Thats a laptop.
Portable DVD players even look like laptops. They have similar sized screens and the clamshell design.

Re:Son of iPod? (1)

Lobo (10944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092301)

Or possibly a Sony PSP?

The son of iPod will be called... (1)

NumbThumb (468496) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092245)

iPodling. See here [sluggy.com] .

Re:Son of iPod? (2, Funny)

shiller (893451) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092246)

Son of a bitch?

Re:Son of iPod? (4, Funny)

damsa (840364) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092247)

Apple likes to use i,power and e as prefixes. So it will either be called powerPod, or ePod. I think ePod as son of the iPod, and PowerPod will be the father of the iPod, and my guess will be //Pod will be the grand father of the ipod. Oh, and the Uncle of the iPod, that no one talks about will be called the LisaPod.

Re:Son of iPod? (1, Flamebait)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092303)

So, what's the son of iPod going to be called?

Son of Satan :P

Bill Gates on Apple (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092142)

Laughable (5, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092146)

Microsoft's efforts to preempt any single manufacturer from dominating the online video market.

I think he means "any OTHER single manufacturer". I'm sure Microsoft will be just find and dandy if THEY were the single dominating online video provider.

Re:Laughable (4, Interesting)

MaestroSartori (146297) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092151)

I don't think MS wan't to be in on the content-provision side, Apple seem to have proven that (for music at least) large profit isn't to be had.

I think that MS just want to be the sole software technology provider to multiple hardware/content providers, that way they can leverage their desktop OS monopoly to the fullest extent when exacting license fees from several small companies, rather than having a larger corporate entity which could dictate terms to MS.

Re:Laughable (5, Insightful)

P-Nuts (592605) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092179)

I don't think MS wan't to be in on the content-provision side, Apple seem to have proven that (for music at least) large profit isn't to be had.

Sure, but Apple aren't really in the content-provision business. The reason they have iTMS and iTunes is mainly to encourage people to buy iPods. Just the same as the reason they write MacOS is to sell computers.

Re:Laughable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092231)

- But, the reason I Use ITUNES is because I can LEGALLY share my music with my: Mother, Wife and Daughter.
Will I get this with a Microsoft Solution? No.

Secondly, sharing content isn't a big problem because my Mother Wife and Daughter's music tastes are different then mine. So, attempts to squeese another Dollar out of the user experience only hurts Microsoft.

- Plus, they were the first at 30 second preview
- Downloads are high quality, if you've ever tried the P2P networks you'd know that download times are long and quality has a huge variance.

Apple will be at the party too (4, Insightful)

Macka (9388) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092242)


I don't think MS will be able to engineer a position where they are the only technology route to this new type of content. Intel are part of the cadre of vendors working on this, and with Apple working so closely with Intel now, any hooks into this new technology will also be available to Apple (subject to the appropriate licensing deal). And you can bet that Jobs isn't going to sit back on his laurels and watch this unfold without getting in on the act. MS will have to share this market with Apple at least. Though where this leaves the Linux distros I don't know.

Re:Apple will be at the party too (1)

gobbo (567674) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092282)

don't think MS will be able to engineer a position where they are the only technology route to this new type of content. Intel are part of the cadre of vendors working on this, and with Apple working so closely with Intel now, any hooks into this new technology will also be available to Apple

Hm. Another guess why Apple didn't go with AMD: only Intel is strong enough to stand up to MS anti-trust tactics.

Re:Apple will be at the party too (1)

niskel (805204) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092307)

Obviously you didn't read this [slashdot.org] . Read the actual article for the MS Intel deal.

Re:Laughable (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092181)

Like they've done with MP3 players? Oh, darn no, they haven't.

Mice, keyboards and joysticks aside MS aren't a hardware company. The Windows Media team produce APIs, DRM is delivered as an API. They've encouraged multiple music stores, even when they have one of their own.

Like it or not "son of ipod" isn't really MS's fault, its their hardware parteners who don't provide players which compete.

Re:Laughable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092213)

like they've done with WMA..?

I wonder if this new scheme is patented (duh!), and who gets the royalties (double duh)?

Re:Laughable (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092310)

Patented? Like iTunes DRM?

As for royalties, AFAIK there aren't any. Certainly when I was doing it the DRM SDK was free.

Re:Laughable (1)

koi88 (640490) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092286)


Mice, keyboards and joysticks aside MS aren't a hardware company.

XBox? XBox 360?
And my guess is they want more hardware, as there is not so much competition from open source on the hardware side...

Who are Microsoft making their products for ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092147)


because everyday it seems the "customer" isnt the person who buys the product

Re:Who are Microsoft making their products for ? (-1, Offtopic)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092338)

Microsoft's customer are spyware companies.

... done our mea culpa? (5, Funny)

dscho (819239) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092148)

Not parse this sentence does.

Customers (4, Interesting)

under_score (65824) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092150)

I expect that ultimately customers will decide that DRM and related tech will fail. There will always be new companies and new products that can break into a market that is underperforming for people's needs and wants. Particularly in the age of blogging, this type of breakthrough is getting easier: access to publicity is much much lower. The big companies like MSFT etc. all are probably quite afraid of this... and therefore trying to come up with anti-competitive schemes. Some of these schemes are technology based, some feature based, and some legislative. Only the legislative schemes should be feared. All the others can be fairly easily defeated by consumers. As for the legislated schemes of protection, even those can be circumvented by sufficiently interesting innovation. The problem there is keeping ahead of the legislative encroachment. In the software world, open source is a great way to do this. Hardware-wise it's a bit more difficult.

Re:Customers (1)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092291)

I expect that ultimately customers will decide that DRM and related tech will fail. There will always be new companies and new products that can break into a market that is underperforming for people's needs and wants.

I expect, however, that the major content providers will be signing exclusive deals with DRM-enabled solutions, as they always tend to be easily convinced that DRM is the only way to go.

So the only way for a new company to come in and undercut them with a better, less annoying, non-DRM solution, will likely be to actually come up with new content. Will this mean that if we want to avoid DRM we'll be stuck watching low-budget, home-grown films [panicstruckpro.com] ??

Unless a major content provider suddenly grows a conscience and shows some interest in preventing the headaches that will come with hardware-enabled DRM, you can bet that it won't be a simple thing for a new company to come up with a more popular solution.

Re:Customers (4, Insightful)

Jasin Natael (14968) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092295)

The content providers have got it backward. They're not going to find their panacea with a completely-secure, uncrackable DRM scheme. They're going to start making lots more money when they work out two things:

  1. A pricing plan that can compete.
    This is not trivial. Remember that they're competing with P2P networks and BitTorrent at this point, since they didn't do anything when the technology was younger.
  2. DRM that doesn't fly in the face of consumers' fair use rights.
    If the consumer feels like they're really losing something by buying a paid-for product as opposed to downloading, they will always go for the lower-priced product with greater actual value.

At this point, it looks like Apple did a good job of balancing all the pro's and con's. It still bothers some consumers who don't have an iPod, or want to use Linux, but they can always buy CD's. Or download MP3's. Whatever DRM model comes up, people will crack it. Some people will circumvent it. Some people will ignore it. The trick is the business model and pricing that convince the consumer to invest.

Of course, you'll never hear that from Microsoft. If the RIAA and MPAA wisened up to what's really going on, Microsoft wouldn't get a penny from them.

Jasin Natael

Re:Customers (2, Interesting)

Shag (3737) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092297)

I don't think the fate of DRM is as black-and-white as you seem to think it is. That's more likely to be true for the really draconian DRM systems, but "gentler" ones are, in my opinion, a lot more like a simple curb.

Yes, you can drive your car off, or over, a curb. But if there's a nice ramp cut in the curb where people intend for your car to go, it's easier to go that way, and most people will.

If someone is determined to defeat DRM - or any other technological solution to any perceived problem - they probably will. But people who have that mindset going in are a pretty small percentage of the population. Even on Slashdot, I don't think they're the overwhelming majority. And other people will acquire digital content by means other than grabbing DRMed versions and defeating the DRM, I think.

(Honestly, I can't imagine why someone would break DRM, since so many things are probably available in non-DRMed formats on P2P networks anyway.)

Re:Customers (1)

gobbo (567674) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092326)

ultimately customers will decide that DRM and related tech will fail

Great, just like we got rid of that hated Macrovision. Almost all I talk to about it say "what?" Then they just stay resigned that they can't copy VHS's or DVD's, despite having two decks, and there being obscure but easily obtained circumvention devices.

The vast majority don't know the modern definition of the word "rip." So how are they/we going to make DRM fail through consumer choice, when it's in EVERYthing they buy?

Hardware-wise it's a bit more difficult.

Yes, that's the crux of it. It will be pervasive, like Macrovision and regions. [/cynic]

mea culpa (4, Funny)

myukew (823565) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092154)

obviously bill gates doesn't know that "mea culpa" translates to "my fault [wikipedia.org] " and thus the sentence "we did our mea culpa" is wrong. tztztz

Re:mea culpa (0)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092191)

mea culpa is what you are supposed to say when you were in the wrong. So that could also read "That's where we've admitted our mistake. We are fixing that."

What's wrong about it?

Re:mea culpa (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092208)

Or like the rest of us he could have used a language which isn't dead and burried.

Re:mea culpa (1)

Achromus (810984) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092262)

Or he could not say "our mea" culpa, which is saying it was "our my" mistake and just sounds aweful. No wonder people think they are seing something wrong with Gates' wording.

Re:mea culpa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092323)

Was your use of "aweful" deliberately ironic, or did you actually mean "awful"?

English lessons from those who have a grasp of the language, please...

Re:mea culpa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092225)

I am not a 'Grammar Fiend' but...

It seems like, to me, the OTHER definition at your link makes sense. It means, more or less, "Admission of guilt/Admission of Flaw". So, "We did our 'Admission(s) of guilt/flaw(s)'." seems fine to me. It would help if you are going to argue about something that your supporting documentation is read in it's entirety. Don't assume that 'definition one' is the way someone's using that word or phrase.

Re:mea culpa (1)

NumbThumb (468496) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092274)

but "meak culpa" is not something you make. "Faux pas" would have worked, if he wanted to sound educated...

Sure, it's just nitpicking, but it triggered a syntax error for me, too.

gah! typo. (2, Informative)

NumbThumb (468496) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092279)

Note to self: don't nitpick, you'r bound to screw up while doing it.

Re:gah! typo. (1)

theolein (316044) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092349)

You're right.

Re:mea culpa (1)

realkiwi (23584) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092240)

This person does not know how to express himself correctly in English - American or vanilla English. Listening to him speak or reading quotes from his speeches is enough to make any high school language teacher choke.

As always... Piracy will save the day... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092155)

AACS - R.I.P.

*2005
+2005

I am your Father (5, Funny)

urbanshepherd (875074) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092156)

Is the son of an iPod an iPea?

Re:I am your Father (3, Funny)

Coelacanth (323321) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092308)

No, it's an iFlea. [nytimes.com] Wait thru the ad, it's worth it...

Define irony (5, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092157)

Microsoft Taking a stand against monopolys

Re:Define Paradoxical (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092186)

It's paradoxical, actually -- not ironic.

Re:Define Paradoxical (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092204)

actually it is irony ,Socratic irony i would imagine as I'm fairly sure Microsoft has no belief that it is in fact a Microsoft(I wrote Microsoft there whilst meaning monopoly , Freudian slip). It is also a standard comedic irony wherein the event is contrary to what one might expect.
It is also hypocrisy , though i don't believe its a logical paradox .

Re:Define Paradoxical (3, Informative)

Tx (96709) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092210)

Actually it is ironic. If you're going to try to be a language nazi, at least get your shit correct. Note definition 2a below.

irony ('r-n, 'r-) pronunciation
n., pl. -nies.

1.
a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit1.

2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

Re:Define Paradoxical (1)

LS (57954) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092321)

2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).


I don't believe that it fits. Microsoft's behavior IS expected, and it doesn't match your example in quotes. The proper word is not ironic... I think it is HYPOCRISY.

If you are going to battle Nazis, make sure your footing is strong.

LS

Tasty lawsuit (3, Funny)

al_fruitbat (617734) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092159)

Parsons later directed Time Warner to join with Microsoft in buying a combined majority stake in ContentGuard, which holds patents on anti-copying techniques

I'd love to see 'em take someone to court for copying their anti-copying techniques ;-)

Bill gates means (5, Funny)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092164)

"we're really having to work more closely with partners in the hardware industry and content industry, to really think through the whole end-to-end experience and make it better"

work more closely -> control
think thorugh the whole experience -> control
make it better -> abuse our vertical dominant position

why be concerned? (4, Insightful)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092165)

Essentially what you have is a collection of the biggest egos in the world trying to collaborate on a single project which will affect the entire movie industry as well as the customers who buy those movies. And the studios in question not only have a history of fighting each other tooth and nail, but of going head-to-head with Microsoft whenever they get the chance.

Conspiracies between megalomaniacs rarely end well.

Max

Re:why be concerned? (2, Funny)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092194)

maxpublic said:
Conspiracies between megalomaniacs rarely end well.


J.R.R. Tolkien said:
There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power.

Re:why be concerned? (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092229)

It should be interesting to see what they come up with. Being designed by a committee led by a company that really doesn't innovate, whatever it is will be mediocre at best.

Also, they forget one thing. Listening to music is an entirely different experience than watching a movie. Then consider the fact that cable boxes already deliver movies "on demand", and there are DVD players that can fit in your pocket.

So that leaves the question of what product they can deliver that consumers would want to own (or probably rent)?

With multiple layers of clunky DRM and what is sure to be expensive pricing for content (having to pay royalties to all the backers is not going to be cheap) I have a hard time seeing what kind of video ipod/set top box they can think up.

I hope they drop a huge chunk of change on it. It will then either be mind blowing wonderful or a piece of crap that nobody wants to buy. If its the latter, maybe it could serve as a lesson, but then you would think that they would learned from divx.

Also, hi-def by itself won't be enough to make it successful.

DRM (5, Insightful)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092167)

Well all the current state of DRM on DVD did for the movie industry is allow them to force you to watch a bunch of bullshit trailers for other movies before you can watch the one you purchased. Every time.

Re:DRM (1)

CdBee (742846) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092205)

yeah, we need a sort of AdBlock for DVDs...

Or the right to control how we consume the media we purchase, but it seems I'm really kidding myself there.....

Re:DRM (1)

bubkus_jones (561139) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092215)

My player allows me to skip them on most DVD's, and fast forward through the ones I can't skip.

Re:DRM (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092244)

Most DVDs allow you to skip them anyway.

Re:DRM (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092361)

That list is getting shorter... and with MS "inside" the new players, even more rare, I'll bet.

That's why I spend my $20 and buy a Cyberhome DVD player. Remove region-coding, macrovision, and whatnot. Then, if they insist on making me watch ads, rip the DVD and watch the movie only.

Fair use is fair use. No matter how much they want to kill it.

Re:DRM (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092352)

Until you press * 4 7 UP on your hardware player (or use xine)

Bill answer this (3, Insightful)

appavi (679094) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092180)

What about single company dominating OS market ?

Why Apple's portable video will win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092185)

As much as the entertainment industry loves DRM, there is one thing they love a lot more: Name recognition.

Apple's portable music player is tried and true, loved by everyone who can afford it. It's so popular that you need to buy replacement earplugs just so you don't get robbed because of the demand.

Is the industry really willing to risk their future in portable media for DRM when they can have guaranteed success through iPod Movie? I doubt it.

Here we go, aiming at our foot again (4, Insightful)

Nice2Cats (557310) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092189)

Among the scarier revelations is the development of AACS, a new already approved security system designed to prevent piracy on HD DVDs, which subjects users to forced upgrades.

Cute. Hope that works out for you. Guess what system I won't be buying.

What exactly is the problem with all of these supposedly highly-intelligent but obviously completely brain-dead (not to say stupid) CEOs? If you put annoying copy protection stuff on your media or try to force people to do any other sort of crap like that, they will simply take their money to the black market. This is the lesson of online music. You will not have total control over the media, because the people with the money will not accept that. End of story.

The only CEO on the planet who seems to understand this is Steve Jobs. Yes, iTunes has various limits, but they are so wide that 95 per cent of the people don't give a damn because they never encounter them: If I want to share music with my kid sister, I can. So what if I can't share it with 200,000 other people on the Internet? This, not any clever usability stuff, is why iTunes has 80 per cent of the market. Just why is this so hard to understand? Is it something that happens to your perception of reality once you earn more than a million dollars a year?

Oh sorry, I meant a million dollars a month, of course. Though Gates at least gives billions to charity.

Anyway, this looks like another great idea from the people who brought you the talking paperclip and tried to force-feed us push technology. No wonder Apple is selling computers as fast as they can build them.

The trouble with the black market (1, Informative)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092221)

I have an even greater moral repugnance for the black marketeers who are making a lot of money worldwide in cracked games, movies etc., selling pirated DVDs in markets and so on. Study after study has shown these people to be involved in much more horrific black market criminality than just this seemingly harmless trade, and more people should be aware of it.

In Britain for instance, the same people who are making vast profits from pirate DVDs and games are people smuggling, selling hard drugs, running child prostitution and exploitation networks in war torn places like Bosnia. They take the profits from their pirate business to help out the other parts. If it comes to a straight choice between murderers, drug dealers and paedophiles and big media companies, all jokes aside, I'd rather give my money to the CEO.

People need to be aware where the money is going, before they make the moral argument for piracy of goods.

Re:The trouble with the black market (1)

doofusclam (528746) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092280)

If it comes to a straight choice between murderers, drug dealers and paedophiles and big media companies, all jokes aside, I'd rather give my money to the CEO.


Utter crap.

Re:The trouble with the black market (1)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092318)

Good Heavens! Such an articulate rebuttal! I reply only to add - everything I have said is verifiable on the Internet somewhere. You can start by googling "piracy links organised crime [google.co.uk] ", if interested.

Your first reaction is not necessarily the correct one.

Re:Here we go, aiming at our foot again (1)

Ann Elk (668880) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092238)

What exactly is the problem with all of these supposedly highly-intelligent but obviously completely brain-dead (not to say stupid) CEOs?

Greed. "Too much" is never enough.

Re:Here we go, aiming at our foot again (1)

sydb (176695) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092292)

Here, you need one of these:

'A'

Re:Here we go, aiming at our foot again (4, Insightful)

DeanFox (729620) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092288)


Oh sorry, I meant a million dollars a month, of course. Though Gates at least gives billions to charity.

In a month? From all his investments, interest, dividends, etc. I heard a number once that Bill Gates wakes up 12 million dollars richer then when he went to bed.

Asked about his wealth he said once you reach a certin level, more money doesn't matter. Things only get so good and once you can afford the best that's it. In other words food only gets so good, cars only get so good, clothes can only be made so good and once you afford the best more money after that doesn't buy you anything better then what you can already afford.

There are days I've pondered what that would be like.

it will get cracked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092190)

It will get cracked in the end and the only people left holding the bag will be Microsoft. They don't seem to understand that these challenges are the ones hardware hackers like most--to do what is said to be impossible. Lastly, I agree, market forces put the original DIVX disks at circuit city out of business and these will go the same way.

Apple's success is Gates' failure? (4, Insightful)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092193)

Why not just come out and say it, Bill?

"No one should make money but me!"

Gates' problem is that he measures success by the stock value of MSFT. I guess that's all he could do, and I don't know him so I don't mean to judge him, but that's where his problem is.

Ask if your customers are happy, not if your shareholders are.

Ask how people want their online media, and see if you can make a dime or two selling them software to help. Don't ask how you can keep someone else from getting people their media.

He seems to get it backwards, every time.

Re:Apple's success is Gates' failure? (1)

sydb (176695) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092273)

No, he's right on the dollar, and he plays according to the system.

It's the system that's fscked up beyond all reason.

Re:Apple's success is Gates' failure? (2, Funny)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092294)

"He seems to get it backwards, every time." And it has made him the richest man in the world. Sucks, doesn't it?

Re:Apple's success is Gates' failure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092348)

Why should he care if his customers are happy? If we keep stumping up the cash, that's good enough.

Re:Apple's success is Gates' failure? (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092350)

Ask if your customers are happy, not if your shareholders are.

MS is a public company, its purpose is to make the shareholders happy. Making their customers happy is just a way to make that happen.

Speaking of 'culpa' (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092198)


How's that effort to keep the citizens of China from reading about "freedom", "democracy", and "human rights" going, Bill?

Re:Speaking of 'culpa' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092233)

Dunno - ask Google.

Re:Speaking of 'culpa' (2, Insightful)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092313)

Why aren't you asking the Virgin Mary Google?

Re:Speaking of 'culpa' (1)

mlk (18543) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092354)

Shh!
Only Microsoft, SCO and ??AA are evil.

Google is Good!
Google is Great!

Google has a plan that will free the repressed civs of China, and lead them to the land of Hope And Glory! Google will NOT fail us!

An approach that's doomed to failure (5, Interesting)

@madeus (24818) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092202)

I fully expect Microsoft will take the same sort of route they have always taken, by focusing almost exclusively on selling their vision to content producers, rather than focusing on making a product that appeals to the market (and watching as the content producers hop on board).

Apple have been successful with their music store because of course they have made it easy for novice users to access, purchase and manage content. The Microsoft media player is in stark contrast a hideously confusing application as far as most people are concerned, and is an excellent example of why Microsoft will not succeed unless they radically change their approach (which on past form, I do not expect they will).

Getting buy-in from publishers is essential in the long run, but by pandering to them to the extent Microsoft have done (in an attempt to get them on-board), all semblance of a marketable product has been lost, because the focus has been on building a product they want to produce, rather than on one people actually want to buy.

Even if all the major content production companies vow to get behind a Microsoft devised solution, consumers will just largely ignore it and continue to rely on established ways of getting content (either legal DVD's or illegal P2P downloads) until they are offered something they are actually comfortable using.

You have to wonder what's wrong with Microsoft's corporate structure when, with their vast resources and many talented people, they can't even build a useable media player (let alone content delivery and management system). It's so tragic, it's funny.

Re:An approach that's doomed to failure (1)

Itchy Rich (818896) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092357)

... rather than focusing on making a product that appeals to the market (and watching as the content producers hop on board).

The trouble is that any solution not vetoed by the content producers will be structured in a way that favours them over consumers. I doubt they're that worried about consumer support; they take it for granted.

Content producers have a justifiable belief that any new services they allow will be lapped up straight away. Whatever they put out there, people will buy it because they don't know any better, 'legal', alternative (there wont be one).

Son of iPod... (1)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092206)

...kneel before Zod! Er... Bill!!

in the bedroom (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092219)

is where it will fail. Right now i can pipe most things i watch onto the bedroom mini LCD. I dont imagine that an end to end DRM solution will like this much, never mind the video senders etc ppl use. how does this add up to an improved customer experence if i can only watch on approved hardware?

Re:in the bedroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092298)

don't worry, porn is usually non-encrypted and region-free on current dvds. they understand.

Day late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092243)

Micro$oft: Day late, dollar sh..Oh wait a min..

I Pee On Bill Gates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092261)

And that is all I have to say.

Other things Bill Gates swore by (5, Funny)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092277)

There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that our way is the way to go.
--
In the decade ahead I can predict that we will provide over twice the productivity improvement that we provided in the '90s."
--
Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a Spider Monkey.
--
If you can't make it good, at least make it look good.
--
Microsoft programs are generally bug-free. If you visit the Microsoft hotline, you'll literally have to wait weeks if not months until someone calls in with a bug in one of our programs. 99.99% of calls turn out to be user mistakes. I know not a single less irrelevant reason for an update than bugfixes.
The reasons for updates are to present more new features.

(sources)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bill_g ates.html [brainyquote.com]
http://www.antioffline.com/HUM/bill.gates.quotes.h tml [antioffline.com]

Re:Other things Bill Gates swore by (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092351)

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates circa 1981

I missed that quote :)

swearing off/at the son(s) of unprecedented evile (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13092320)

never mind the personal satisfaction, think of yOUR children, & those yet to arrive.

vote with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

we still haven't read (here) about the 2/3'rds of you kids who are investigating/pursuing a spiritual/conscience/concious re-awakening, in amongst the 'stuff that matters'? another big surprise?

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Forced updgrades? (2, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092328)

Is anyone else nervous of the prospect of being forced to upgrade?

At least with video cards, (usually) you don't HAVE to have the newest DirectX capability. What if all of a sudden WMP decided that anything below 2GHz was too slow to play media and demanded that you upgrade?

Microsoft could pull a lot of bullshit with that, since the own the operating system. They could just choose to disable various video/sound APIs until you upgrade. And it would be completely legal for them to do so, that is, if the EULA applies.

Bill stuck with his rent/toll dreams (2, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092335)

Bill has to get away from the rent/toll view of what the end user wants. DVD sales and itunes seem to point to the end user wanting to pay for what they want - once per generation of format. If they can just get into the hardware and software and production and .......

My take... my rant. (3, Insightful)

Vodak (119225) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092339)

So what does this mean to all of us? Why do companies keep coming up with DRM technology that everyone says are doomed to failer? Why does slashdot and other 'tech' sites contiue to retread the same stories about DRM again and again and again?

Well it could mean that there is a need for DRM technology in today's culture no matter how much I and alot of other people hate it.

Companies like Microsoft and others to bring up this technology to fit a niche that everyone is wants. The masses are accepting digitial and downloaded content the way every 'techie' has said they would for years. So companies come up with the easiest solution of DRM. Is DRM good? No, but it's al we have right now.

To many times I here the argument that DRM is doomed for failer because "it will be broken soon anway" or "Big Business is stupid and trying to control our lives"

The open source community has an important mission and critical need at this moment to fix this DRM problem now. The only way we will get away from all this DRM talk to to come up with a different solution to the problem.

DRM is here to stay until there is a better option.

Blu-Ray chose Java... (2, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092341)


So Gatesy is cosying up to the folks at HD DVD, all the more reason for the Slashdot crowd to get behind Blu-Ray who have chose the Java platform for their interactive content, and built ontop of the MHP standard.

What Gatesy really wants is people to choose HIS standard, rather than electing for something more open that lots of other companies support.

Think it won't work? (5, Insightful)

Puls4r (724907) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092356)

Hey, you've got DRM on your DVD's and MOST people barely notice it.

Except of course when they reach the FBI warning and can't fast forward past it. And as much as my wife bitched about the annoyance of having 8-10 tracks prior to the movie, she's come to accept it because.... EVERY DVD has it.

So down the road, when we're force to buy a new monitor with our new computer, well, we won't think much more about it than we do when we get a new phone with our cell plan.

The only way this is going to fail is if the companies can't hack out a good standard. If it becomes too much of a hassle, THEN it will fail. If my new monitor won't work on a different computer that's also new, or if I'm severely limited by monitor choice, that MIGHT make enough of a difference for me to choose another alternative. But I doubt it.

What's the incentive? (5, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092364)

No one wants to buy into a crippled system and consumers are getting more savvy to these type of things. I hear enough complaints about the regional encoding in DVDs and players and the market found a way aroud that (region 0).

Sadly, while people are too lazy to vote/voice against things like DMCA, they still vote with their dollars.

iTunes is an example of a system that provides assurance to the music industry while being flexible enough for consumers to use - like being able to share music with friends.

Napster on the other hand is a more inflexible model and also seems like a traitor in some respects:
http://p2pnet.net/story/5521 [p2pnet.net]

The thing also with HD DVDs is that right now the DVD is an entrenched market that's good enough for most people. Most people don't even own the right TVs to make use of the enhanced resolution. So what is the incentive to move away from DVDs? Hell, VCR's had good enough resolution but the killer was the ability to go anywhere in the movie like a CD (and the smaller size of discs).

If people percieve that HD DVD's or PAIDFOR online downloads are severely restricted, what incentive do they have to move away from DVD?

Resolution they can't take advantage of/notice in most cases? 1 hour wait times until the hour long FBI warning goes away because it stops all those pirates? Compulsory previews?

Article summary: (2, Funny)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 9 years ago | (#13092369)

Bill Gates realizes that he made a bunch of hugely arrogant mistakes that sabotaged his efforts with the content providers, but has humbled himself, turned over a new leaf, and is now ready to make a bunch of hugely arrogant mistakes that will sabotage his efforts with the content buyers.

What's the old saying? Something about it being impossible for a Microsoft product to not suck before version 3.0? It sounds like Gates has a whole new series of lessons to learn before Microsoft gets this right.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?