[M] ATI R600's secret weapon revealed: A sound card, HDMI compliant

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/04/05

"It gave the impression that EMI was not only partnering with Jobs, but also taking its marching orders from him."

Comment from Kougar @ 2007/04/05

I don't think Steve Jobs forced anything. EMI only decided (Or realized) that it was likely in their best interest to forgo the DRM. They have had a long history of playing around with non-DRM solutions in the past before Jobs ever said anything at all. :P I can only hope they reap the rewards of that choice enough that at least some of the other music studios will decide to do the same.

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/04/05

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerke

It's a little more complicated than that.
I know for sure that MS wasn't happy about implementing DRM into Vista. It costed them a lot on programming houres, and limited the functions of Vista also. But they had little choise. If they didn't do it, people wouldn't be able to play premium content on Vista. And who would be blamed for that???? Yes, MS again, while it's the music and film industry that forces these things on to us, and on to MS.
I know a man working for MS Europe, and he assured me that MS wasn't jumping to implement DRM. He even had to go to America for several meatings about it, during development of Vista. The top of MS wasn't happy about the delay, and extra cost DRM caused. According to him, implementing DRM caused a delay of 10 to 13 months. In other words, we could have had Vista for a year now, and MS would have made money during that time instead of spending it on more programming

I say that are all lies, because the music and film industry depends on M$, not vice versa.

Afterall, Steve Jobs managed to force EMI into removing the copy protection too.

source:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/techno...ogyreviews-hed

Comment from jmke @ 2007/04/05

So we could have had a working Vista SP1 released beginning of 2007 instead of end 2007

Comment from beerke @ 2007/04/05

It's a little more complicated than that.
I know for sure that MS wasn't happy about implementing DRM into Vista. It costed them a lot on programming houres, and limited the functions of Vista also. But they had little choise. If they didn't do it, people wouldn't be able to play premium content on Vista. And who would be blamed for that???? Yes, MS again, while it's the music and film industry that forces these things on to us, and on to MS.
I know a man working for MS Europe, and he assured me that MS wasn't jumping to implement DRM. He even had to go to America for several meatings about it, during development of Vista. The top of MS wasn't happy about the delay, and extra cost DRM caused. According to him, implementing DRM caused a delay of 10 to 13 months. In other words, we could have had Vista for a year now, and MS would have made money during that time instead of spending it on more programming

Comment from jmke @ 2007/04/05

Hey Cyonix, do know that the text above it a quote from the Inquirer website

I think it a two way street, media companies rub microsoft back, and microsoft theirs... if Microsoft would just do away with DRM altogether media companies would be forced to bring media DRM-less, otherwise nobody would be able to play their content

Comment from Cyonix @ 2007/04/05

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

probably brought on by the Vista DRM infection and MS twisting arms to force it on people.

Why would it be in microsoft's interest to force DRM on people?

They put DRM in the OS so that media companies allow their content to be played on Vista.

It sounds like your MS hate is clouding your judgment; you should be redirecting that hate towards the media companies.