1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
|
<img alt="Vistalock" title="Vistalock" src="http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/vistalock.jpg" border="0" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0px 5px 5px;" />Despite some software snafu's, notably [iTunes][6] and [Camera Raw data mangling][5], we've been cautiously optimistic about Windows Vista. However there is one white elephant in the room that we haven't addressed -- DRM. As it ships Windows Vista has support for DRM built into very low-level areas of the OS.
The question is, are consumers concerned about Vista's DRM mechanisms enough to hold off on upgrading? One one hand Vista offers compelling new features, added security and performance gains, but at the same time these benefits come with the cost of DRM.
Vista only allows, what Microsoft docs on the subject refer to as "Premium Content," to be played back through interfaces that have DRM mechanisms built in. But what is "Premium Content?" The most common example and on that's most likely to effect consumers in the immediate future are HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs, which both feature various DRM controls. Here's a real world example: if you have a high end video card that doesn't offer DRM support you would have to disable that card before playing back a new Blu-Ray disc.
Many have excused Microsoft's decision to build DRM controls into Vista by arguing that Microsoft is bowing to Hollywood pressure -- which is the same argument Steve Jobs has used to explain iTunes DRM -- but as security guru Bruce Schneier [rightly points out][1]:
>It's all complete nonsense. Microsoft could have easily told the entertainment industry that it was not going to deliberately cripple its operating system, take it or leave it. With 95% of the operating system market, where else would Hollywood go?
An article posted earlier this month by Peter Gutmann provides a thorough, geeky and technical, [breakdown of Vista's DRM controls][2]. Gutmann claims that Vista's DRM protection "incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost."
Microsoft responded by posting a twenty questions [article on the Windows Vista Blog][4] that attempted to allay consumer concerns. Microsoft points out that many of these features already exist in XP and even on other consumer devices like DVD players. But even within the detailed explanations, Microsoft admits that Windows Vista's content protection features will increase CPU resource consumption.
There's also a couple of market-speak twists of logic in Microsoft's defense of DRM, including the notion that because the hardware requirement specs are available there will be no difficulty in writing open source drivers, which neatly sidesteps the point that open source drivers that don't implement Vista's DRM simply won't work for premium content.
Clearly DRM is something to think about if you're planning to upgrade and it raises the question: is Microsoft trying to create a new monopoly on content distribution? The music labels are already realizing that iTunes DRM ties them to Apple and Schneier seems to think Vista's DRM will do the same for Hollywood content producers.
Schneier thinks that Microsoft is aiming to create a lock-in not just for Hollywood content producers but also peripheral manufacturers. "It's another war for control of the computer market," he writes.
However with Steve Jobs publicly decrying DRM and some major labels contemplating DRM free downloads, it seems possible that Vista's DRM could end up being a hinderance to Microsoft. What happens when major studios decide to deliver non-DRM downloads?
For all those that dismiss Vista entirely and vow to stick to their XP/Mac/Linux machines, consider this tidbit from Gutmann's aforementioned *Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection*:
>These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server).
I'm curious how many of you are putting off upgrading to Vista because of DRM concerns? Is this just something the paranoid are concerned about or are general consumers concerned about DRM lock-in? Do the benefits of Vista outweigh DRM concerns? Let us know what you think.
[photo credit][3]
[<b>Update:</b> This post was heavily re-written after I first published it to give a more detailed explaination of Vista DRM.]
[1]: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows.html "DRM in Windows Vista"
[2]: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection"
[3]: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordcuauhtli/218948748/ "Lock and key"
[4]: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx "Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions"
[5]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/02/vista_issues_fo.html "Vista Issues For Pro Photographers"
[6]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/02/vista_day_three.html "Vista Day Three: What's Broken?"
|
