Cheapest Possible Client?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

Actually, it isn't entirely true. The difference lies in the fact that the Cell proc architecture is allegedly massively parallel in it's core. Nobody up until now saw much need to create really advanced multi-threaded applications (mainframes not withstanding). MS has like 92% of all PC's as a customer base and even they aren't doing more than just scratching the surface of parallel proc developement environments.

Given, this latest generation of consoles is new territory, and the PS3 will be the pinacle, good or bad, for "wierd" technology. Especially given that the Cell is quite different from normal multi-cpu-ness. It's more like a graphics card in many ways, and those are notoriously hard to program for, or at least were before HLSL.

Now enter Sony. This company has NO EXPERIENCE in creating developement platforms (this has always been MS's strongsuit). Now they have to create one (and it better be VERY good if they expect to utilize the proc. power). Then, they have to figure out a way to compel developers to spend the time to learn their (read proprietary and not very good) IDE then try to learn the best ways to 'really' leverage all that cpu. It's just not going to happen.

And the talk of relatively large scale developer defections from Sony is proof. Like I said, I was playing devils advocate. I think the 360 is the better machine on a number of levels, but Sony is big enough, and the PS is a powerfull enough brand name to bring in a good deal of developer support even if it is hard.

MS made the Xbox easy because you are still dealing with known processor entities (Xbox1=x86, Xbox2=PowerPC), unlike the PS3.

Agreed, one of the things IMO, that makes it better.

The problem I have is that MS has chosen to alienate a significant share of the market by forcing the resolution 'strangle hold' (I forget the acronym for it) that will make most current displays obsolete when Vista comes around.

I've got a good idea what you're talking about, but I think you're completely wrong on this. There's no indication that Vista will require a new display to run. Or a new display to play current media. What will be required is HDCP for next-gen connent, specifically HD-DVD/Blu-ray/CableCard.

It's just not a necessary consession that they had to make to Hollywood.

If you think content companies would ever approve the playback of those media on a non-HDCP PC, you're diluding yourself. This is a forced concession, not one MS volunteered for. Look no further than DVD-A or SACD. DVD-A requires a special soundcard for playback, and SACD is impossible. Next-gen video would be the same way without PVP-OPM.

I have little trouble with the idea of preventing copying over the web, however most of the DRM solutions (Microsoft's included) go way above and beyond that.

That's not MS' fault.

That's the price Sony is paying for a decade of incredible miss-management and it's STILL continuing.

Sony is screwed on many levels.

I wish it were that way. As you know, I used to work there and it isn't nearly as altruistic as it may seem. The only motivating force for business there- Power (first and foremost) and Money (second, or co-first priority) regardless of who you have to go through.

-PGPfan

I don't disagree, and I hate to make it sound like I think MS is the greatest thing ever, I don't. I don't like PVP-OPM or WM-RM. And I don't for a second think that MS is doing things out of any altruistic motivation. However as I've said in other threads, in the case of media, MS's interest and our interest are parallel. It is in our interest to have media as interoperable and open as possible, and it's likewise for MS. We like to rip CDs, DVDs, stream around the house, build PVRs, record TV. All that sells OS's, and that's what MS does.

It's in MS' best interest to have as much media available and open as possible. That's why they've fought hard for Mandatory Managed Copy (and won it) on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

It just so happens that the best way for MS to sell OS's, regarding media, is to support and fight for the things we want to be able to do. Unfortunately, as powerful as MS is, they must concede some things, so they offer DRM so the content providers will allow PC playback.

[PGPfan]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I've got a good idea what you're talking about, but I think you're completely wrong on this. There's no indication that Vista will require a new display to run.Or a new display to play current media.

We'll have to see, I've heard it stated that we will need new displays, and I've also heard just content will be downresed. FWIW, where does playing back a DVD that is scaled to say 1440x960 come in to play? Will it be limited to default DVD resolution?

Originally Posted by stanger89

Or a new display to play current media. What will be required is HDCP for next-gen connent, specifically HD-DVD/Blu-ray/CableCard.

If you think content companies would ever approve the playback of those media on a non-HDCP PC, you're diluding yourself. This is a forced concession, not one MS volunteered for. Look no further than DVD-A or SACD. DVD-A requires a special soundcard for playback, and SACD is impossible. Next-gen video would be the same way without PVP-OPM.

I hear where you are coming from. But let me further explain what I meant. When I say MS embraced too intrucive DRM, it's because I sincerely believe they did. If they were to have rejected it, they wouldn't have access to HD media (at first anyway), nobody would in the PC space. The 'big media' execs will behave like babies and say something to the effect of "fine, we'll just take our content and run home". Then they release HD optical formats - and wait and wait and wait for it to sell. It doesn't. Why? The early adopters wont touch it since it's not playable on a wide range of hardware. Joe Sixpack is priced out of the market on the 'get go'. Then some agressive content owner realizes that they could make money if they just allow PC playback regardless and let other factors (the ones so designed) take care of the alleged 'piracy' problems. Other factors like international treaties, law enforcement, slow internet (for such HUGE files), etc. After all, who would look like and be the bad guy in this scenario? Only the PIRATE, who deserves to get prosecuted.

Most folks that care about image quality wouldn't d/l a movie in general due to the horrible quality of most of them. Despite the rant's by the content industry, current copyright law really does work pretty well. It's the distribution business model that's broken.

To me, this is were MS blew it.

Originally Posted by stanger89

I don't disagree, and I hate to make it sound like I think MS is the greatest thing ever, I don't. I don't like PVP-OPM or WM-RM. And I don't for a second think that MS is doing things out of any altruistic motivation. However as I've said in other threads, in the case of media, MS's interest and our interest are parallel. It is in our interest to have media as interoperable and open as possible, and it's likewise for MS. We like to rip CDs, DVDs, stream around the house, build PVRs, record TV. All that sells OS's, and that's what MS does.

It's in MS' best interest to have as much media available and open as possible. That's why they've fought hard for Mandatory Managed Copy (and won it) on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

It just so happens that the best way for MS to sell OS's, regarding media, is to support and fight for the things we want to be able to do. Unfortunately, as powerful as MS is, they must concede some things, so they offer DRM so the content providers will allow PC playback.

Although I disagree with the 'need' to have conceded, one things for sure- it's too late now, and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

-PGPfan

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

We'll have to see, I've heard it stated that we will need new displays, and I've also heard just content will be downresed. FWIW, where does playing back a DVD that is scaled to say 1440x960 come in to play? Will it be limited to default DVD resolution?

That's an open question since it is copy protected...

I hear where you are coming from. But let me further explain what I meant. When I say MS embraced too intrucive DRM, it's because I sincerely believe they did. If they were to have rejected it, they wouldn't have access to HD media (at first anyway), nobody would in the PC space.

Exactly.

The 'big media' execs will behave like babies and say something to the effect of "fine, we'll just take our content and run home". Then they release HD optical formats - and wait and wait and wait for it to sell. It doesn't. Why? The early adopters wont touch it since it's not playable on a wide range of media.

You should read some of the HD-DVD discussion over at AVS. They are the definition of early adopters, and aside from a few of us, most don't care about PC playback, or transcoding, MMC, etc. I think you over-estimate the importance of the PC to early adopters, at least for next-gen DVD.

Joe Sixpack is priced out of the market on the 'get go'. Then some agressive content owner realizes that they could make money if they just allow PC playback regardless and let other factors (the ones so designed) take care of the alleged 'piracy' problems.

DVD-A/SACD haven't been openned up, despite them being essentially dead.

Other factors like international treaties, law enforcement, slow internet (for such HUGE files), etc. After all, who would look like and be the bad guy in this scenario? Only the PIRATE, who deserves to get prosecuted.

Don't get me wrong, I have no love for DRM, and the next-gen battle has frustrated me to the point I may just sit out next-gen DVD.

Most folks that care about image quality wouldn't d/l a movie in general due to the horrible quality of most of them. Despite the rant's by the content industry, current copyright law really does work pretty well. It's the distribution business model that's broken.

I completely agree, I've made several (rather lenthy) posts about my thoughts on DRM, but in a nutshell they are:
DRM doesn't solve the problem
DRM won't make them money
DRM may well loose them money

To me, this is were MS blew it.

On a philosophical level, I wish MS would have told them to shove it, but I completely understand their position and choice on a business level. As it stands I'm glad they're in on it, because we'd be totally screwed without them (look at Blu-ray, Fox, Sony, and BD+).

I really am torn though, I despise CP, and I think it's a total waste of effort on the part of the content industry (my idealistic side). But my pragmatic side sees that given DRM/CP is here, the idea of HD-DVD/Blu-ray/CableCard is definitely nice.

Although I disagree with the 'need' to have conceded, one things for sure- it's too late now, and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

-PGPfan

That it will.