I stumbled on an interesting article about problems with Microsoft Vista’s new content protection elements. It’s pretty long and can get technical in some parts, but here’s the basic summary: Microsoft, in cahoots with major media moguls (Hollywood studios, record labels, etc.) has designed their newest operating system (Vista) with a paranoid level of safeguards against pirating. The “protections” are so restrictive that many users may find that they cannot watch or listen to content that they legally purchased (and this has already become an issue for some users).
Even if you are lucky enough to be able to view the content, Vista may still downgrade the quality without telling you. So even though you may be watching a HD-DVD source disk, the actual image quality may have been downgraded to that of a regular DVD.
The article lists other issues with the new content protection system. Drivers have to be signed by Microsoft (a very cumbersome process) in order to work 100% with the OS, otherwise the device it controls will be crippled (imagine that you buy the latest video card but Vista won’t let you view movies on your screen). All protected media content has to be encrypted within the computer, forcing the CPU to decode a video stream and then immediately encrypt it, which will put excessive demands on the CPU (if it’s even possible on your computer). Of course, all of this protection is geared towards media – Microsoft doesn’t really care if your personal information, like passwords, is protected or not.
The bottom line for the average user is that a computer will now cost more because of hardware development costs, increased hardware requirements just to run the operating system, and when all is said and done there is no guarantee that their computer won’t run into problems because a Microsoft software update breaks functionality that it deems “unsafe”.
More advanced users will probably have no problems getting around these issues by circumventing the entire protection system. It will probably take hackers days to break Microsoft’s various protection schemes (which is common – MS has had a host of problems with their existing DRM), but most users won’t know enough to take advantage of those hacks. Once again, in the war against piracy, it will be the common user that loses.
An operating system should enable a user on his computer, not interfere with the user’s ability to work with the data on his system. If Microsoft continues down this path, it will see consumer market share decline sharply. More and more users want to be able to view and create content on their computers, and if Microsoft interferes with those features then users will be willing to pay a little more, get an Apple, and get exactly what they want.
Personally, I like the Windows XP OS. It’s pretty stable (relative to the other Windows versions, although 2000 wasn’t too bad) and very easy to use. The ease-of-use was the key selling point for Windows that made it so popular. Apple has stepped up to the plate and created an interface that can rival Windows, so Microsoft no longer has the luxury of being the only choice on the menu.
On a final note, a few months ago Steve Jobs posted an open letter on DRM, explaining Apple’s business stance on the DRM it uses in iTunes. He goes on to say that if the studios would give consent, Apple would gladly do away with its DRM. It’s interesting to see the difference in philosophies between Apple and Microsoft. PCs used to be a totally open hardware specification, which differentiated it from Apple’s closed model. Now, Apples run on PC hardware (although still tightly controlled) while PCs are in threat of conforming to Microsoft’s (and the Hollywood studios’) specific demands.
I’ve never owned an Apple computer; in fact, the only times I’ve used one is helping someone else to figure out how to create and manage media files. But if this keeps up, I may have to finally give up on Microsoft and make the switch. I guess I’ll be watching Vista closely to see how this goes (and holding on to XP for as long as I can!).