Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Re-Brands PlaysForSure

Posted by Zonk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 02:34 PM
from the always-a-pleasure-doing-business dept.
mikesd81 writes "Information Week writes about a licensing change intended to 'beat Apple at their own game'. They're going to use a combination of branding and DRM, and replace the "PlaysForSure" logo with a "Certified for Windows Vista" tag.'The certification is used to guarantee compatibility with Microsoft's copyright-protection software and is the same logo used for the company's Zune player. The problem, however, is that music and video bought from the online Zune Marketplace won't play in their native format on other devices, including those that will carry the new logo.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:03PM (#21687212)
    "Might play sometimes"?
    • No... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Roger W Moore (538166) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:09PM (#21687278) Journal
      ...they originally just planned to drop the 'L'.
    • some letters:

      -tex
      -en

      ie, playtex4ensure

      I could also imagine this as a password on an AOL disc...
    • At some point, the lawyers prevail over the marketers.
    • Plays for shit.
    • "Might play sometimes"?

      no, it plays for an hour. makes you wait then reboots 3 times.

      reboots4sure might be better and more accurate.
      • I like the way Microsoft markets Apple iTunes - by continually stepping on their own wanker!
      • by reidconti (219106) on Thursday December 13 2007, @05:30PM (#21689704)
        For Apple's DRM'd music, on an iPod, iPhone, or registered computer (Mac/Windows) running iTunes.

        How is this worse than Microsoft's play?

        What's confusing about Microsoft has done here is called PlaysForSure "Vista Compatible" while ignoring the fact that it also works on XP and whatever else. They also call Zune music "Vista Compatible" but the two formats are not compatible with each other.

        Or with music players that most of the world owns.
        • by cgenman (325138) on Friday December 14 2007, @12:55AM (#21694172) Homepage
          Apple:

          1. Apple creates proprietary iTunes schema, as none such existed in the market. Sticks with it for ten years. Starts to transition to universal MP3's.

          Microsoft:

          1. Microsoft creates proprietary PlaysForSure schema in response to apple. Partners with lots of companies to push as an proprietary but licenceable standard. Sells PlaysForSure tracks on MSN.com.

          2. Microsoft abandons PlaysForSure, destroying the standard. Microsoft instead sells the Zune, with zune-specific music tracks.

          3. Microsoft sticks PlaysForSure and Zune DRM together as "Certified for Vista." Except that things which are all "Certified for Vista" will play with Vista, but won't actually play with eachother. And it will play with non-Vista things. Right.

          So the music player with an estimated 2% of the market is paired with an OS that has 6%. Good luck with that!

  • by guruevi (827432) <evi.smokingcube@be> on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:03PM (#21687214) Homepage
    So now we're going to have Certified for Windows Vista on things that have nothing to do with Vista? Will it work on XP? That's going to be really confusing for their consumers (Microsoft doesn't have customers) especially since that logo will be found on software and hardware.

    I also don't know what music and music players have to do with Vista other than the DRM. They should rename it: "Plays only on Vista, bitches" and then say like... bitches.

    Apparently the front page is now also infected with DRM since I can't post anything and it keeps logging me out.

  • = PlaysForVista

    a subtle hint for the future? ie that you will need Vista to play anything new?
    • by vought (160908) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:10PM (#21687300)

      a subtle hint for the future? ie that you will need Vista to play anything new?
      BINGO! As Microsoft unifies PlaysFerShure and Zune DRM, they will include the feature in Vista only, ensuring that millions of people will not care in the slightest, but cementing the reputation of their marketing department as brain dead.
      • Actually, the branding is -- for the first time -- becoming quite clear to me. Microsoft's DRM logos on a device means "protected content must be purchased separately for this device; you cannot transfer previously purchased content to it."

        There. I'm not even an Apple fanboy, but that's an easy target for a "Hi, I'm a Zune," "...and I'm an iPod" commercial. Or better yet, "I'm a generic MP3 player, and content you purchased for me will play on damn near anything."
    • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:11PM (#21687310)
      Well, if the name says as much as "playsforsure" said, it means it will play on Mac, on Linux, even on your cell, but never under any circumstances on Vista.
    • Are they going to apply it to the countless terabytes of unencumbered mp3, FLAC, and avi files that get released constantly on bit torrent et al? Unless they find a way to retroactively apply DRM and convince everyone to start using it for everything there's no way their dream of a Vista requirement for media play back could ever be a reality. This is only going to apply to the--very small--group that buys music from stores that use this particular DRM. If it's really as bad as people make it out to be, the
  • What ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by terrymr (316118) <terrymrNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:05PM (#21687226)
    How is Microsoft doing something utterly incomprehensible supposed to "beat apple at their own game ?"

  • Certified for USING Windows Vista?
  • Maybe better? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:08PM (#21687270) Homepage Journal
    Given that only Windows could handle PlayForSure, and that Microsoft was unlikely to let any other OS developers have the necessary licenses, maybe this is clearer. Maybe its clearer that this form of lock-in requires Microsoft Windows. Either way, its DRM and its nasty.
    • Re:Maybe better? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ozbird (127571) on Thursday December 13 2007, @04:15PM (#21688412)
      Perhaps they think that labelling it "Certified for Windows Vista" would help them sell more copies of Vista; if so, they're sadly mistaken. "PlaysForSure" may be tainted as a brand, but then so is "Vista". They've put lipstick on the pig, but people still won't kiss it - especially brown lipstick.
  • by rsborg (111459) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:09PM (#21687286) Homepage
    Well, Microsoft surely have Apple beat when it comes to customer confusion.

    How does this play with a former "PlaysForSure" device that is intended only for XP? What about the Zune (which, AFAIK, still doesn't work with PlaysForSure media, but *does* work with Vista?

    Seriously, are MS intending to hand Apple a computer media format monopoly on a silver platter?

      • by AJWM (19027) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:44PM (#21687856) Homepage
        MS pumped in a whole heap of money into Apple at one point to basically keep them solvent

        Uh, if you mean the paltry $128M or so that Microsoft paid Apple for some non-voting, non-dividend stock back in the 90s, Apple had a couple of $Billion in the bank at the time. AAPL stock price was tanking because of lousy management, not lack of cash.

        The money was actually a settlement of some lawsuits by Apple at the time, the "investment" thing was a face-saving figleaf that Gates required if Apple ever wanted to see another version of Office for Mac.

        And yes, there were plenty of Apple fanbois moaning about it and accusing Apple of selling out.
                    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      Tell me - why would Apple accept Microsoft's money unless they ***NEEDED*** it?

                      Because it was money?

                      Supposedly, they were deadly enemies.

                      Corporations are rarely (though, still, it happens) anything like "deadly enemies" outside of the mind of their respective fanboys. They were, of course, competitors in some markets, but MS was also the vendor of a software package that Apple felt was important for its platform. They weren't "deadly enemies", they were companies that were each trying to make money. Apple

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        No, you're wrong about Microsoft keeping Apple solvent.

        Apple were being called "beleaguered" and "struggling" by a media hooked on those terms but the fact is that had around 2 billion dollars in cash reserves, were just about to launch the iMac, the iPod was in the works and the company was working hard on getting OS X into a public beta state. The company was struggling to get past the crap left by a bunch of poor CEOs and to raise their image, but not struggling financially.

        You would have heard a lot of
  • Makes no sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tridus (79566) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:10PM (#21687304) Homepage
    This move makes no sense. PlaysForSure devices/stores are not compatible with Zune devices/stores, but they'll both carry the same logo? This defeats the entire point of the PlaysForSure branding in the first place: that any device and any store with the branding will work together.

    Somebody at Microsoft has lost their minds.

    • Not quite. They have lost many things true, but I suspect the strategy here is to slowly migrate the PFS logo into the Vista/Zune world, and begin rejecting hardware that doesn't meet with the Zune/Vista level that they control alone. In other words, if nobody can match their lockdown, then they alone control the market. Yes, all of this supposes MS doesn't have to compete - so its horribly flawed.

      For example, Nokia may have a PFS-compatible device, but it won't be Zune-capable anytime so
    • I'm sure it makes perfect sense if you're in marketing. I, however, am not in marketing. I suspect it goes something like this:
      1. Rebrand PlaysForSure
      2. ???
      3. Profit!
    • Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Thursday December 13 2007, @04:01PM (#21688110) Homepage Journal
      ``This move makes no sense. PlaysForSure devices/stores are not compatible with Zune devices/stores, but they'll both carry the same logo? This defeats the entire point of the PlaysForSure branding in the first place: that any device and any store with the branding will work together.''

      BEEP. You fail it!

      Compatibility was never the idea of PlaysForSure. First of all, PlaysForSure is DRM. DRM is all about making sure things _don't_ play for sure. Secondly, Microsoft introduced the Zune with a PFS-incompatible scheme, without so much as blinking.

      I don't know what exactly the strategy is, but it smells like sucking as much money as they can out of as many idiots who will fall for it. First, they bought into PlaysForSure. Then, Microsoft introduced the Zune...which would have made Zune DRM the tech to get, had it taken off. Now, those who bought into PlaysForSure is screwed because it isn't what Microsoft's _own_ player uses. And those who bought into Zune are screwed, because nobody uses the damn thing.

      And Microsoft, who brought them to this hell, is sitting on piles of money.

      And it became night. And it became day. Just another day in monopoly land.
  • Why not just no DRM? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PeterChenoweth (603694) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:10PM (#21687306)
    Unlike many slashdotters, I don't have a big problem with Microsoft. Writing software with their tools pays my bills. But it baffles me as to why they can't figure out that their whole DRM plan is broken. First they create a 'Plays For Sure' system, but then they release their own player that doesn't work with it. Who was the genius that decided that? It's as if Apple had different DRM's for different versions of the iPod. And now *another* name change? They just can't figure it out.

    If Microsoft wants to win customers from Apple, they should just drop DRM all together. If Amazon and Apple (iTunes+) can do it, why not Microsoft?

    • If Microsoft wants to win customers from Apple, they should just drop DRM all together. If Amazon and Apple (iTunes+) can do it, why not Microsoft?

      Probably because that would show everyone that the delays in Vista, the crappy performance due to inserting DRM everywhere and all the customer alienation they have been working on the last years, was a complete and total waste of time that adds no value to the people that are supposed to buy their OS, and probably a waste of shareholder $$$.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If Microsoft wants to win customers from Apple, they should just drop DRM all together. If Amazon and Apple (iTunes+) can do it, why not Microsoft?

      You are forgetting that Microsoft was and still is -- despite Gates' quote -- a huge proponent for DRM. Microsoft wants to be the gatekeeper to the entertainment world and to the connected living room. DRM was/is their vision of this tollbooth. Consumers buy electronics using Microsoft licensed technology, entertainment producers license softwares based on Micro

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:13PM (#21687356)
    As in "It plays for me. The problem must be on your end."

    Hey, why shouldn't MS copy the ancient excuse of every tech support on the planet for their products? They copy everything else.
    • Hey, why shouldn't MS copy the ancient excuse of every tech support on the planet for their products?

      That's probably one of the few genuine Microsoft inventions... they just trained their MCSEs well in the use of the dark side of the force.

      • I'm fairly sure the "it works like it should on my end" excuse has been with us since the caveman accidently impaled his buddy with a spear, who complained and got that answer.
  • The original text should have read ProfitableForMicrosoft, because that's the only meaning I can infer from the original PlaysForSure program.

    The closest thing that comes to defining the spirit of the phrase "PlaysForSure" is the MP3 format, because it will play on the highest percentage of hardware in existence.

    Dan East
  • by dangitman (862676) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:14PM (#21687382)

    Riiiiight

    Becuase Apple's game was to promote the iPod as being exclusively for one platform, and having multiple incompatible DRM formats. Funny, I though Apple did the opposite, and (unusually for Apple) made the iPod cross-platform, and implemented fairly simple DRM that is consistent across all its products.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        When did I say that DRM was good? Please show me the part of my post where I said that.

        I don't like DRM one bit. I was talking about consumer acceptance in the marketplace. If the iTunes DRM was as convoluted, incompatible and as flakey as Microsoft's DRM - then the iTunes store would never have been a success in the marketplace.

  • i for one (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:15PM (#21687390)
    do not welcome our restrictive drm laden asshat overlords
  • No WMA? No problem! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dj245 (732906) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:20PM (#21687478) Homepage
    Thats not a bug, thats a feature! Microsoft is trying to get people to use greener, less CPU-intensive codecs like MP3 to save power and the environment.

    Kidding aside, what is Microsoft's business plan with the Zune??? Judging from the vast numbers of deeply-discounted Zunes being dumped into the market (I bought mine for $80 on Woot), they can't possibly be making money on the hardware. The software is so terrible that I only use it when my music collection changes substantially, and their music store certainly doesn't have much going for it right now. What is the "attachment rate" for Zune store purchase? Its probably shockingly low.

    The whole thing reminds me of Xbox 1 (and the 360 to some extent) where Microsoft deeply discounted the hardware hoping to make money on the software, but then didn't because their projections of attachment rates were completely off and the hardware was selling at just too great of a loss.
    • Kidding aside, what is Microsoft's business plan with the Zune??? Judging from the vast numbers of deeply-discounted Zunes being dumped into the market (I bought mine for $80 on Woot), they can't possibly be making money on the hardware.

      Maybe they are just trying to take some of the wind out of Apple's cash cow? Seriously, I love my iPod, but even I'd buy a Zune at that price if I were in the market for an MP3 player. Maybe the dumping is deliberate?

      Ooooor, they could just be as incompetent as they seem. I'm not into conspiracy theories, and William of Ockham would probably choose incompetence.

  • by amigabill (146897) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:22PM (#21687502)
    I use XP. I'm not interested in Vista. Certified for Vista doesn't make me fell like I can use this stuff... I'll also assume it won't work on my ipod. What about my Sansa with Rockbox? Still dunno. I feel safer _avoiding_ "Certified for Windows Vista" items.
  • stupid enough to license this technology? I mean, this'll have to wake up any remaining hold-outs.
  • I won't use MS audio products because I need to use them with Vista and not with my OS of choice.

    sed -e 's/MS/Apple/g' -e 's/Vista/iTunes/g'

    Here's to my $30 2GB Hong Kong-made MP3 player that mounts under "/mnt/player"!

  • by DieByWire (744043) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:39PM (#21687762)

    ...for small values of 'for sure.'

  • by Tyr_7BE (461429) on Thursday December 13 2007, @04:21PM (#21688512)
    A straight up unladen MP3. THAT plays for sure.
    • Wma files are just awful, it's absolutely hit or miss whether even my laptop will have the right license files to play one. I've didn't succeed in getting my playsforsure player to do anything (until I found fairuse4wm).
    • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

      by mabhatter654 (561290) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:14PM (#21687380)
      don't blame the article... that is EXACTLY what Microsoft is doing!!!! Putting the same "compatibility" sticker on PfS and Zune, when they are clearly not compatible.
    • Reminds me of a commercial, but maybe it should be sung as:

      "I am STUCK on BRAND-AID cuz LOONY's STUCK on ME..."

      Seems like vista's the Chevy Nova of operating systems versions. Remember the Nova being sold in Spain? It didn't sell well or at all because over there (an anywhere in Espa~nol) "novas" means "doesn't go/won't go" basically, "unreliable".

      Rebrand Vista to Novas.

      But, looking at reversing things, I "Googled" "atsiv", and found:

      http://vista.blorge.com/2007/07/30/symantec-free-utility-tool-by-passes-vi [blorge.com]