What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
86 Comments
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -12/+67"Seeing the look on Gates’ face when he walked into the room and every single one of us had a Mac open on the desk in front of us - Niall Kennedy has also set up a makeshift wifi network using an Airport"
Ah, I'd like to see a video for that.. - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -10/+51Bloggers given free Zunes. Bloggers using Mac notebooks. Zune doesn't work with Macs. Sweet irony.
- axemachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41Also there:
Question: "Do you despair at the number of Macs in the room?"
Answer: "We're happy about it. We sell a lot of software for the Mac!" - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -9/+48'Cus Bill Gates != Microsoft.
- Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45Actually I think if Gates ran for president in 08 he'd have my vote as of now.
A self-made billionaire who understands technical issues and seems relatively level headed.
It flies in the face of most other candidates. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40With the browsers wars, we got Firefox, improved versions of Konqueror and Opera, which also became free, and IE had to improve to keep up with the changes. How do you see this as the consumers losing?
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Amused most likely.
Microsoft and apple are not as big of competitors as you might think or hope.
To Bill, it's just another platform his software already runs on. - jonshipman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25because the RIAA would sue and record labels wouldn't let MS have any music in their music store. Same with Apple. Hell iTunes 4.0 had a type of p2p built in but was removed after the RiAA bitched.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28No, the only reason we have to deal with DRM is that content providers are paranoid and greedy . If Bill Gates had refused to cooperate, he would have been shut out, costing the company billions. Either we'd have a situation where nobody could play hi-def content on a PC, or a competitor like Apple would've given into demands, and gained significant market share. I think what a lot people are missing is that the content providers would rather just not make digital content available at all than sell it without DRM.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Umm, couldn't you use Parallels to sync the Zune?
- Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23You ass, you really think they people who originally though of the device wanted to DRM it to hell? It is obvious the record labels threw a fit, thats why MS has to pay Universal money, because there is potentially a way to pirate music with these things if it become hacked
- ElectricSoup, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29"How do you see this [the matter of the browser wars] as the consumers losing?"
OK. I'll explain.
Because the outcome of the "browser wars" was that Microsoft:
(1) integrated its browser very deeply into its operating system (because that helped to shut the competition out); and
(2) implemented its dangerous Active X technology (not because it could do anything the safer Java language couldn't but because it was proprietary and so Microsoft had control over it and could shut out the competition by inducing popular websites to use it [See footnote 1].)
Now, understand this: both (1) and (2) made surfing on the web more dangerous for people who (a) use Windows and (b) use Internet Explorer on Windows.
Further, most "consumers" (a) use Windows and (b) use Internet Explorer on Windows.
Consequently, consumers were put in an unsafe situation by Microsoft.
Therefore, "the browser wars" - which is to say Microsoft's determination to stamp on Netscape - was a loss for "consumers", since it left them more open to attack on the web.
QED
That's enough to be going on with, but also bear in mind that Microsoft, having killed Netscape, felt secure enough - in marketing terms (since IE then had the market - or over 90% of it) - to let IE stagnate. That was also a loss for consumers, since webmasters could not take advantage of developments in HTML and CSS specifications rolled out by the W3C, since they had to cater to the lowest common denominator - namely, Internet Explorer.
Only the rise of Firefox - and it still hasn't risen that much in absolute numerical terms - induced enough panic in Microsoft to make it bring IE (somewhat) up-to-date.
For further thoughts on why Microsoft may have wished to kill Netscape and may have actually wanted Internet Explorer, all competition being dead, to itself stagnate, too, see here:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
****
Footnote 1:
See US DOJ Findings of Fact:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Parallels doesn't do USB2 yet, and with USB1.1 @ 12Mb/s syncinc well over a dozen gigs to your Zune would be painfully slow. ... syncing a few gigs would be painfully slow, and wouldn't I know it. I have first hand experience with an early creative jukebox.
- DucksofAnaheim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18HDD`s are so cheap now I have re-ripped all my CD`s in lossless format. Jobs wants to sell me 128 kbps for about the same price as a CD ? And it has DRM. NO WAY.When they start putting out lossless non-DRM music(for a fair price) I will download it. And I like DVD Audio which you must buy on a disk. DVD Audio on a good home 5.1 system is absolutely stunning.
- msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Yes, but MS is a huge target for groups like the RIAA and MPAA. MS has to play nicely with the media companies, or they don't get the privilege to play DRM'd crap. Personally, I would have much more respect for MS and Apple if they grew a backbone on things like this and told the RIAA to suck it.
Big name music != good music either. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"Gates did give some reasonably candid insights suggesting that he thinks DRM is as lame as the rest of us..."
Hey now, Gates doesn't even know me! Where does he get off calling me lame? - 1021, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18or any other major product on the market, a la iPod, etc.
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17OSX will not be taking over any time soon, they have a market consisting of over 90% of the entire computing world.
Microsoft is not worried, and apple doesn't really want what Microsoft has.
All the problems of supporting nearly 30 years of software, the headache of wide spectrum hardware support.
And finally the lobbyists like the EU looking to throw the book at Microsoft and milk them for cash whenever some bone head programmer from ***** Transylvania's media player doesn't work as well as windows media player, by crying foul that microsoft won't share code, something he's already agreed to when he signed the EULA of the development software.
Apple would never want that, because they would fold, they don't have the money or manpower, only Microsoft does, like it or not the world will not be stuffed in a series of white PCs, only a select few are satisfied with that.
So as for apple taking over, they viral Microsoft in nothing but the pure spunk of their users.
And Bill thinks that just adorable. - Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21His position on DRM doesn't surprise me much. Despite what you may think of Microsoft, Bill Gates himself has always been a fairly progressive thinker and this DRM ***** flies in the face of those ideals. As rich and influential as Bill Gates may be, he's just another cog in the distribution machine. Microsoft has to play the game just like every other company that wants to dance with the recording industry.
Microsoft needs the music industry more than the music industry needs Microsoft. - TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16because bill gates does not run microsoft
- lyzz, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27If he doesn't like DRM, why do Microsoft's products lead the way in supporting DRM?
- geoken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Everything I've been reading about all these bloggers/journalists being invited to the MS campus has talked about how they were hand selected because of their anti-MS viewpoints. I think whatever look this particular blogger thought Bill Gates had was probable in his imagination. I mean why would he be surprised to see a bunch of bloggers on Apple's when he specifically invited anti-MS bloggers?
- djphatjive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13He has to do whatever the RIAA says. Its not his fault. He would not be able to sell anything if he did it his way.
- reevesmjr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Amused most likely.
Microsoft and apple are not as big of competitors as you might think or hope.
To Bill, it's just another platform his software already runs on."
I agree. Microsoft will start worrying about Apple if they decided to release an OS that isn't on their own proprietary hardware. Otherwise Microsoft will continue to make money off MS Office. - BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7HMTKSteve, you aren't wrong.
I have a friend, who probably lacks his soul, working an internship with a major label. He's heard some of the stuff the big guys talk about. They DO want a tax on Hard Drives and all storage media.
They just don't get it. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I wonder how long it will take for the RIAA to start putting a "tax" on Hard drives, after all they are used to store pirated music...
- dipswitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So where is the transcript?
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"For want of a comma, the context was lost" :)
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5actually "LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder"
- techmonkey4u, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Bill Gates on the future of Spam: "Gone by 2006!"
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/24/tech/main595595.shtml - youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Gerz1219
They are called fan boys and like all fan boys they should be ignored. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@Ratteler -- Yeah, except Linux, which has no support for DRM, also can't play back any legally purchased content. Windows Vista itself doesn't have a "crapload of DRM", it simply has support for a crapload of DRM. That means that if you want to play back all of your illegally downloaded Divx movies and MP3's, you're free to do so. You just have the additional option of purchasing content legally and playing it back on your PC, if you were ever so inclined. OSX features the same support.
I don't understand why anytime the issue of Vista's Cablecard or Blu-Ray support comes up, there's always some idiot on here saying "Go Linux!" Despite its many advantages, Linux will never be able to play back HD content or support legal digital downloads, unless the hackers come up with some extremely crafty (and illegal) workarounds. I'm especially amused by your dismissal of Vista as having a "fake OSX interface," when half the Linux distros out there blatantly rip-off OSX. Christ, there was even an article on here a few weeks back which offered a step-by-step guide to customizing a Linux desktop to appear *exactly* like OSX. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5sideshow,
Nicely put. Every maker of DAPs has to deal with this. Stop blaming Apple or MS as they don't control the content that sells the players. - IsaacA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4“we need more flexible models, such as the ability to “buy an artist out for life” (not sure what he means)."
I think what Gates was going for is a form of 'crowdfunding' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdfunding ), where a very large group of people (users) buy the rights of a song and make it available free of charge to everybody else, so there would not be a need for DRM. The artist gets a substantial reward and on top of that a much bigger audience, while the buyers each pay a very small price and for that they (and everybody else) get great value for their money. The bigger the crowd, the more value they get for their money. It should be possible to organize such a large community on the Internet, because it is a win-win situation for all the parties except the major record labels.
Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has also written about the inefficiency that 'Intellectual Property' creates in his new book Making Globalization Work. Watch this video of a talk he held at Google:
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=204637612900091118&q=Stiglitz
(The part about Intellectual Property starts at 22:25. Maybe we should Digg this video as well). - sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I know M$ is every ones whipping boy but can we place the blame for DRM at the feet of the RIAA and the MPAA not only for the threat of law suites if DRM is not added but also for not forcing an industry standard for DRM so consumers don't get screwed.
- geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually OS X's DRM is even more restrictive, controlling which machines it can and can't be installed on at the hardware level.
Also, Vista can be moved from machine to machine. The only stipulation is that it must be removed from one machine before it's activated on the next machine. The one machine limit was in early revisions of the Vista EULA but was later removed and is not present in the final EULA. - ChrisDeBurg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Whats your opinion about DRM?
I agree with it
I disagree with it
I understand why, but I don't like it
Undecided
..
You must be joking! - ChrisDeBurg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2SARCASM it's finest..
well done Darcy - HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you mean DESPITE the browser wars. Microsoft's driving ambition for those moves was winning the developer's hearts, not the consumer's.
If Microsoft were actually participating in the browser wars then, they'd have actually tried to make browsing better. Instead they tried to make webserving better through their proprietary technologies, which everyone was guaranteed to have. - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is as long as you don't install Windows on more than one machine, you can rip the CD as much as you want.
- aeoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But if Bill Gates != Microsoft, then who cares about his opinion? :) He's *not* in power to shape the direction of the industry anymore.
- DucksofAnaheim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The itunes model is too inflexible to survive long-term. Why should I pay 99 cents for so-called music if it is encoded at 128kbps and THAT is the only choice (not to mention the DRM).If they want it to work , get rid of the DRM and offer choices for the encoding.I prefer lossless as todays HDD`s are so large and cheap.ALLofMP3 offers lossless for a little more money , so why can`t the download services do the same ?John C Dvorak was on to something.He pointed out that with cassettes the music industry put a tax on the blanks to compensate them for the copying going on.Nobody complained back then or really noticed it.Put a tax on the HDD`s and other media and give us no-DRM music in many different quality levels based on price all the way up to lossless , otherwise none of these services are going to be mainstream as a CD replacement. When I take my CD`s with me I don`t have to worry who`s player they will work in.Downloaded music should be the same.Without a tax of some kind DRM isn`t going away.The tax worked back then...and it can work today.
- sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Restated for clarity (and edification):
"Gates gave some reasonably candid insights that suggest he might agree with the rest of us in thinking that DRM is lame."
"Gates recently offered some candid comments suggesting that (like the rest of us) he thinks DRM is lame."
"Gates, offering uncharacteristically candid insights, suggested that he agrees with the rest of us that DRM is lame."
How I would have said it:
"Based on his recent public comments, Bill Gates apparently agrees with the rest of us that DRM is lame."
or
"Bill Gates recently suggested in public comments that he thinks DRM is lame." - youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So because BG and MS have plenty of money that guarantees them a win in being able to provide software/hardware that distributes copyrighted material freely?
Are you seriously retarded or do you just lack the basic understanding of the law? - Jumangi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Got a kick out of Bill saying people should just buy CD's and rip the music themselves. A funny swipe at all the online stores(even his own).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@misterpony
Because back then website developers were forced to write browser-specific code, which meant a lot more work for producers. As for consumers, it's better to have any browser capable of reading all pages comfortably, that's why we have standards. Today consumers are locked into specific DRM'd hardware, which means consumers lose, and producers lose as these potential customers are already locked-in.
I never said anything about the end result not being better for consumers, I simply drew parallels with the browser war era. ElectricSoup did a very nice little summary of why the browser wars was bad, so no need to rehash that. One would argue though that it took many years for Microsoft to get off its hindquarters and produce a quality browser in response to renewed competition. IE is still the browser that the majority of the world uses; so I disagree with you there, and say that most people today have lost. You and I may be savvy enough to use alternative clients, but not most people. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have no idea what people have against hessian, but he is making some good points. Are people thinking about the current round of the browser wars instead of Netscape vs. IE in the 90s?
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Because Microsoft is constantly living under a microscope, one little slip up and some shyster gets lawsuit happy.
Microsoft knows why this happened, but it's too late.
They are now forced to obey rules, while the little guys like apple float on by unnoticed.
Also, it's the world's dominant platform. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11"He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific."
That must be a mistake, b/c that's exactly what the Zune does with WiFi transfers. - dombi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So if DRM is lame, can we get Windows for free too? Because I think copy protection, and serial numbers are just as lame. Why is installing Windows so limited?
"His short term advice: “People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then.""
Is the same true for Windows too? -
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is