| |||||||||||||
A cost analysis of Vista content protectionA cost analysis of Vista content protectionPosted Dec 24, 2006 6:22 UTC (Sun) by grouch (guest, #27289)In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection by lutchann Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
Monopoly power is a funny thing. If unchecked, it can be leveraged from the market in which the monopoly is attained to intrude into, and take over, other market segments. When a single company controls enough of a market to wield monopoly power, all others must conform to the constraints it imposes on that market or they are left to try to survive in the left-overs. Microsoft has long used its power in the PC software market to control the PC hardware market. This is why we have such bizarre things as an 'on-off' switch which does not act like the 'on-off' switch on, for example, a lamp. (How long do you hold a lamp switch in the off position before the light goes off? Is it still drawing power after it's off?) Try doing a search for "PC System Design Guide", with or without the quotes, and see what turns up. Try it for PC95 design guide, or PC97 hardware design guide, or PC98 system design guide, or PC99 system design guide, or PC2000 system design guide, or PC2001 system design guide. Hardware manufacturers must design for inclusion in the monopoly or try to recoup their design and manufacturing costs by selling to the left-overs outside the MS Windows / PC market. How many can afford to reduce their market share by 80% - 90%? Microsoft software ships pre-installed on most computers available in brick-and-mortar stores and on most computers available by mail order or by way of the Internet. With the OEM market in hand, Microsoft can dictate hardware design. Hardware manufacturers would need to take a bold gamble that MS Vista will not retain monopoly status in order for them to reject design criteria dictated by Microsoft.
(Log in to post comments)
A cost analysis of Vista content protection Posted Dec 24, 2006 17:53 UTC (Sun) by joey (subscriber, #328) [Link] > This is why we have such bizarre things as an 'on-off' switch which does not act like the 'on-off' switch on, for example, a lamp. (How long do you hold a lamp switch in the off position before the light goes off? Is it still drawing power after it's off?)
When was the last time you lost a file on your lamp due to unclean shutdown?
Also, it's not exactly unheard of for other equipment to have complicated on/off behavior. For example, my deisel truck needs to heat its glow plugs so has a two step process to turn it on. The space shuttle needs over an hour after landing to be safed and shut off. Nor is it unheard of for equipment unaffiliated with microsoft to draw power while "off", for example, my cordless phone here does. So do most televisions. Laying computer power switch behavior at the feet of microsoft's monopoly is an interesting assertian, I'd be intruiged to see some quotes justifying it.
A cost analysis of Vista content protection Posted Dec 24, 2006 19:04 UTC (Sun) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
See the PC97 design guide, or, if you prefer not to access microsoft.com:
The start procedure you reference for a diesel engine is dictated by the way a diesel engine works. Likewise for the space shuttle. A PC does not require a complex power-off procedure. A power switch shielded from accidental tripping would be sufficient. Uninterruptible power supplies are the best answer to the problem of losing files due to disorderly shutdowns. The "instant on" provision is a convenience for many people. I don't think it adds enough convenience for the aggravation and it is certainly not dictated by the way a PC works. It comes, instead, from Microsoft, just as the extra keys with a MS Windows logo was dictated to the keyboard industry by Microsoft.
A cost analysis of Vista content protection Posted Dec 24, 2006 22:46 UTC (Sun) by aya (guest, #19767) [Link] > A power switch shielded from accidental tripping would be sufficient.
It would also need a big red sign next to it telling users not to press it until they had selected "shut down" from the Start Menu (which, by the way, they wouldn't read); alternatively, it couldn't actually shut the computer down immediately, at which point we're back to today's status quo. What you say is true, *if* all computer users were computer-savvy, which is obviously not the case. Most people won't understand without a lot of explaining that their important document didn't actually go to disk as soon as they hit "save", and most people won't really care, either.
Now, that being said, I do feel a bit skittish about Microsoft's potential control over hardware design, but this particular example isn't terribly insidious.
A cost analysis of Vista content protection Posted Dec 25, 2006 0:57 UTC (Mon) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
What's a "Start Menu" and what does it have to do with turning a computer off?
There are people who will use a fork to try to remove a screw and end up with a ruined fork and a ruined screw. Maybe there should be some mandated design guide for forks to make them not fit screw heads.
Where do you get this "potential" qualifier? The potential was fulfilled more than 10 years ago. MS Vista is simply extending the remote control.
|
|||||||||||||