Linked by alcibiades on Tue 30th May 2006 20:40 UTC
In the News Dell and its business model has been the focus of a lot of comment on Apple oriented forums in recent months. The Dell model is said to be unviable, and Dell's recent news is said to prove this. A limited endorsement of sorts for the so called "end to end model" in music has been published by Walt Mossberg in the WSJ. Recently a real sky-is-falling article with this theme has appeared here. This is a subject that matters. If the advocates of the so-called "end to end model" are right, it implies that the industry structure which allows us all to source hardware from wherever we want, and run a variety of OSs on it, is in danger.
Thread beginning with comment 129231
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
cr8dle2grave
Member since:
2005-07-11

They have it.

Only if you find a further degradation in sound quality an acceptable trade off for the interoperability you've had all along. I don't and I see no reason to believe that consumers in general will over the long run.

Fairplay just offers much more flexibility than WMDRM ever will

False. On the technical side, MS's DRM scheme offers a greater range of enforcable policies than FairPlay, making it more attractive to publishers, and it's available on a far greater range of devices, which will eventually win over consumers.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Quoth_the_Raven Member since:
2005-11-15

Hello! McFly! Anybody home?

I think the previous poster was referring to more flexibility for the consumer. Guess what? He's correct.

Your statement about MS's DRM only amplifies why Apple's scheme has been more successful. MS provides more flexibility for the content provider, therefore, it creates more confusion for the consumer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Fair enough. Seen from that angle, his comment does make more sense. In any case, it does nothing to undermine my primary contention that broad interoperability will inevitably win out.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

False. On the technical side, MS's DRM scheme offers a greater range of enforcable policies than FairPlay, making it more attractive to publishers, and it's available on a far greater range of devices, which will eventually win over consumers.

Not gonna happen. MS DRM is dead, just no one bothered to announce it yet.

I worked with Windows Media DRM (Janus to be exact) on a development level and with customers directly. Its a wash. The SDK is about as a solid as using quicksand for the foundation of a house. Look at the support forums of any company using windows media DRM and you'll see post after post about licensing issues, tracks that suddenly become unplayable, device licenses that expire without rhyme or reason, Burn rights that fail. Its a wash out.

Customers get confused with all the different 'policies'. They don't get that one track might be transferable to a device, but not burnable to CD, or burnable to CD but not transferable to a device.

Windows DRM is NOT reliable and it has so many licensing options that it does nothing but confuse users.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Not gonna happen. MS DRM is dead, just no one bothered to announce it yet.

Someone should tell DoCoMo. They just picked MS DRM for all Japanese cellphones that have DRM.

Reply Parent Score: 1

cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

One could have fairly said much the same thing about Windows 95, or NT for that matter, eh? The technical kinks will be worked out (mostly) over time, and de facto standards of rights management policies will eventually coalesce around proven business models.

In any case, the determinant factor at play here isn't going to be technological; it'll be economic.

The Microsoft model for online distribution of audio and video would situate them in roughly the same role that Phillips occupies in the CD market. Microsoft seeks to extract a licensing fee from a commoditized standard, which is already the status quo in the consumer electronics market.

The Apple model, on the other hand, would result in a Cupertino based monopoly controlling the entire retail distribution chain as well a crucial component in the the consumer electronics market. Of course, that's the nightmare version. But no need to worry...I think it's pretty safe to say that the idea of Apple assuming the role of every record store and replacing every manufacturer of CD players to be exceedingly unlikely.

As of right now, the market could be said to consist of Apple and The Rest. But the greater Apple's successes in the early phases of the game, the greater the collateral pressure for The Rest to coordinate their efforts around commoditized standards.

Also, don't forget that the small handful of major content cartels will have a pretty decisive say in how things will turn out. Do you think it's likely that the interests represented by the MPAA will choose negotiating retail distribution contracts with a single monopoly player rather than with a broad array of independent interests?

Or maybe Jobs will end up making the smart play and open up the FairPlay licensing for other hardware manufacturers and retailers. In that case, all bets are off.

Edited 2006-05-31 06:43

Reply Parent Score: 1