cobalt's Profile

I don't fully agree with the main argument of this article. The UMPC will never compete directly against smaller, more specialized personal electronic devices because sometimes you need a smaller, more specialized device. It doesn't matter how advanced the UMPC is going to get in this respect. The size of the UMPC will always be determined by the desired amount of visual information needed to run the OS and benefit from all the functionality in the UMPC. You can always design a higher quality, smaller, and more user friendly device with a longer battery life if it's for a specialized function: e.g., the cell phone. Which is I think more to the point: consumers are always going to want smaller devices like audio players that will work well with their computer(s) of choice. And for multimedia content, the UMPC has a good chance, IMO, of becoming that computer of choice. I agree that the UMPC helps Microsoft put their DRM out there on a portable device, and helps level the field between Apple's and MS's DRM. But MS can't "control" the software that runs on Windows, including DRM files. There is Windows software that can read every available codec and convert files freely from one to another. You can't really "protect" music, you can only make it inconvenient to make a 1:1 copy of the digital information. Choosing a DRM scheme is like choosing the particular inconvenience that you're going to suffer from or that impacts you and your personal habits the least. Where I see the UMPC digging into iTunes has to do with the fact that the iPod requires content synchronization with one PC through iTunes. So, you're required to have at least two copies of your digital media: one on the PC, one on the iPod. This is a part of the protection scheme worked out between Jobs and recording companies. It's an added obstacle -- in other words, a design flaw. It was a well chosen design flaw for the time, but of course it was eventually going to be a liability as technology, not Microsoft but technology in general, advances, in that it's just a plain old inefficient use of a limited resource: hard drive capacity. HD capacity becomes more and more of a limited resource by mobilizing the PC: laptops included, but especially with the UMPC. If you get a UMPC with 60GB 1.8" HD storage and try to pair it with a 60GB iPod, you'll see what I'm talking about. You want that arrangement to load new content on the iPod on the go, but it's just not feasible. Intead, the UMPC favors files that can be played off of a mass storage device type of media player. A mass storage type of media player essentially acts as an external hard drive with a battery, and can also work on its own with its own built in functionality. The fact is that you don't need any "DRM files" at all to be affected by this difference between MS and Apple's choices in their DRM models. If you rip your own music or video files, the problem with the UMPC/iPod/iTunes combination is still there. In general, our rights to our digital media purchases are being more aggressively managed: "DRM". Unlike the iPod which abides by Apple's DRM model, a mass storage device media player allows you to keep a complete archive at home (uncompressed on your NAS) and a smaller archive on your UMPC and your PMP, depending on where you want your media files at what quality for what purpose, with complete flexibility in managing hard drive usage. So mass storage PMPs will always work better with a UMPC than a large capacity iPod. Period. Apple can make a tablet mac tomorrow and this would still be true. In general, I think the UMPC has little to do with Apple as such. I think this is Bill Gates's brainchild that he has been working on for years and will keep working on until it happens. He can do this, because he's a multi maga billionaire running a huge successful company that makes Windows, Office, and some other stuff. Bill Gates won't rest until everyone is walking around with a networked PC. Sure that PC will run Windows, but it will also run Linux, and any compatible software that Apple wants to produce to support any device it creates. Furthermore, any UMPC made by MS, Apple, or Dell will run bit torrent, youtube, real player, etc. The fight for control of DRM between MS and Apple is just kind of an ironic topic, IMO, from the standpoint of consumers of multimedia content (i.e., most of us). The biggest contributor to DRM "features" is the RIAA. The RIAA would love to have more control over consumer behavior around media content playback, because they think they don't have enough. If MS's or Apple's versions of DRM actually became more popular and profitable because of the UMPC with built in wifi and no optical drive, the RIAA would be thrilled beyond belief and start releasing "online only" "albums" filled with "crap". Both MS and Apple are trying to offer convenience to the consumer despite the barely functional, intermittently erratic RIAA mentality. But for the consumer to care which version of DRM is winning without thinking about the functional loss of privilege is not really at all to the advantage of the consumer. The smart consumer will minimize DRM use to only certain purposes anyway; continue to buy CDs and support that format; and support Fair Use with their wallets, IMO. The hi-def video market represents too much data to do anything about, and it's not in the downloadable content arena. But in relation to music, the consumer has a huge impact on how music is and will be distributed now and in the future... for real, I mean. And it doesn't matter which OS we're running. If you want to do something like have a single track for the gym, make a mix for a party or a friend, or expose yourself to lots of music for a couple months at a time, there are tons of ways to do that with and without DRM that are all great for the consumer. There are numerous services available that consumers will pay for to have that function. But, if you really like an artist, I think it makes sense to reward yourself and the artist by buying a new CD. That CD is a !!CD-quality!! archive that you can backup and listen to at higher quality, where you want, and how you want it. If we are concerned about control of purchased media content, we should be fighting for control of CD quality audio and NTSC/PAL/DVD quality video. And throw in 5.1 audio too. These are computationally workable on existing computers, distributed in a user friendly format that is resistant to manipulation, and perfectly suitable to portable devices. The fight for anything more than that is neither feasible nor necessary, IMO. HDTV resolution on a 7" handheld device with 7.1 digital audio is not something we can realistically be concerned about. But the moment DRM audio and video overwhelm CD and DVD formats in profitability, the battle for control is lost.