1. The "damage" was as simple as a checkbox in the options tab.
First you had to figure out that you needed to go there. How would you know your content was DRMed without your permission? How would you suggest remastering original content without the raw source footage still available? WMP10 did not undo anything previously encoded, and did not change the DRM default option. See
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/knowledgecenter/mediaadvice/0090.mspx#EAD.
People here maybe. People here still complain about Windows 98/ME, WMP9, Windows XP pre-SP1 etc. like it's somehow relevant to the present day. You are very guilty of this.
Again, please tell me how users are supposed to get their 3-5 years of content back after media player DRMed it. It's still relevant, just as Windows XP is still relevant over five years later.
Second, the claim that AAC is cheaper with or without DRM than WMA with or without DRM is plainly false. I have provided several resources to show this.
You're talking about device licensing, which is wholly unimportant. AAC in any form is cheaper than DRMed WMA. DRM-free WMA is a moot point--where can you buy it? This thread is about online music marketplaces. Yes, WMA's one-time *hardware* license cost is a maximum of 90 cents cheaper than AAC, if both the encoder and decoder is licensed. Tell me the last time someone had a problem with a player being less than one dollar overpriced. You're 100% correct that 10 cents is less than a maximum of $1 (but portable players don't do encoding; so a Zune, for example, only costs a
maximum of 50 cents to license). A one-time higher price of 40 cents certainly beats a fee per track, no matter how low the per-track free might be.
Fourth, if "Nearly all WMA stores use DRM" [...] then it would only be proper to make the same distinction for AAC files, which also "Nearly all use DRM".
Yes, absolutely. Let's set that standard. Now, DRMed AAC files do
not incur a per-track cost like MP3 (with or without DRM) or DRMed WMA. So you come out on top with iTunes and an AAC player over any of the other legitimate and non-subscription based online stores. Painfully simple, really.
False. Dolby (and others) have changed AAC at their own discretion too. That's how MPEG-4 SLS, HE-AACv2, and HE-AACv1 came about. Apple even took it upon themselves to create another modified version of ISO MPEG-4 audio called Apple Lossless.
You're still tilting at windmills. It's not new versions that are the problem, it's the anticompetitive use of those new versions to break support for former Microsoft "partners." Creating your own derivative for your own uses, as in those cases, are not used to control the market via a proprietary format. Sony's ATRAC, for example, is perfectly acceptable, because they created it for their own purposes (and I hate Sony far more than Microsoft as a company).
You said, Microsoft could/would come out with a new version and everything would stop working. I said WM7/8/9 still work. You said only if it is licensed to the current version.
Wrong. Reread the post.
I don't see anything different between how Microsoft handled the situation and how Apple or anyone handled it except for the fact that your Tin Foil hat stops you from acceptiing the truth.
The difference is that Microsoft has withheld new version support from certain vendors in the past on its products or intentionally changed things to make other companies look bad.
New version of what? You do know that Real uses the very latest in Windows Media codecs and DRM, right?
It was hypothetical, just like your statement it responded to.
BS. Microsoft still actively develops and supports Playsforsure.
I didn't say they didn't. They themselves abandoned it for their own player and locked out all other vendors from selling music for their Zune. Why would they do that? Why would they build partnerships only to snub them when they entered the market? Because it's Microsoft.
Hell, since launching the Zune, MS has picked up several major new partners. Specifically, Netflix, Showtime, Walmart (video), Blockbuster, and the BBC. Maybe you should write them all an email an explain to them how Microsoft is no longer developing for Playsforsure.
None of which are compatible with the Zune or the Zune marketplace (URGE), and none of which are exclusive deals. What happens to PlaysforShit doesn't matter at this point because Microsoft is clearly setting up its successor in the Zune.
Look, you're not even responding to the points made, and you've continued to gloss over the actual problems and Microsoft's proven anticompetitive track record. WMA is technically inferior to AAC to boot. AAC is an open standard; WMA is not. It's really not that hard. WMA, in the form it is offered to consumers in online music stores (i.e. with DRM), is more expensive than AAC because it incurs a per-track fee due to the DRM; AAC, with or without DRM, does not charge per-track fees.
