Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

MSN Music Purchases Not Compatible with Zune 453

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the digital-restrictions-management dept.
lewiz writes "The BBC is reporting that music purchased at MSN Music will not play on the new Zune music player." From the article: "The problem has arisen because tracks from the MSN Music site are compatible with the specifications of the Plays For Sure initiative. This was intended to re-assure consumers as it guaranteed that music bought from services backing it would work with players that supported it. MSN Music, Napster, AOL Music Now and Urge all backed Plays For Sure as did many players from hardware makers such as Archos, Creative, Dell and Iriver. In a statement a Microsoft spokesperson said: 'Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MSN Music Purchases Not Compatible with Zune

Comments Filter:
  • Plays for Ruse, since there are a lot of people that are feeling tricked at the moment.
  • One would think Microsoft would do their best to retain their customer base from MSN Music.
    • Re:No Way! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mpapet (761907) on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:49PM (#16746141) Homepage
      You fail to understand that "Plays For Sure" and all the OEM suckers that bought into it were simply a part of MS's larger experiment.

      Zune is, practically speaking, a DRM 2.0 for MS and entertainment mega-corps.

      Which goes to show you how much MS actually values companies using their platform in 2006.
      • Re:No Way! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:17PM (#16746413) Journal
        FTFA: Microsoft has said it will stop selling music from MSN music from 14 November, when Zune goes on sale in the US.
        ...
        From 14 November, customers on the MSN Music store site will now be redirected to Zune Marketplace or, as part of a 2005 legal settlement where Microsoft agreed that no music service would receive greater promotion than RealNetworks, Real Rhapsody.

        MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program. This move only makes sense if MS decided that the ill will generated by screwing all their existing customers is outweighed by the the marketshare they'll gain from Zune
        • by topham (32406)

          I don't know about you, but if I had just been screwed like this I wouldn't pick the Microsoft option...
        • by vought (160908)
          MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program.

          How much you wanna bet Apple licenses FairPlay to Creative and others within the week?

          Just thinking that it'd be a nice idea.
          • by AuMatar (183847)
            Nope. Apple makes money on hardware. They won't open up fairplay and risk iTunes people buying something other than an ipod.
            • by Maxwell (13985)
              If apple makes $20 on each iPod, why would they turn down making $20 from each creative zen as well? Once their market share gets chipped away a little more, they will license it.

              JON

              • by AuMatar (183847)
                Because they wouldn't make as much. By making the ipod the only thing that can use itunes, they get 100% of hardware revenue from all itunes users. If they open it, they get 100% of hardware from N% of itunes users, and a small fee from 1-N%. Unless N is extremely small, they make far far more by keeping exclusive control.
                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by dwandy (907337)
                  In general, history doesn't agree with you:
                  Apple failed to open the Mac and has managed to keep 100% of 5% of the market, down from ~50% at peak. Contrast with the very open Intel x86 standard. (not just the chip, the whole architecture has competition)
                  Sony has introduced countless (now) irrelevent proprietary media types all of which either failed to ever get traction or started with a bang, but dropped off until they disappeared. Contrast with the very open CD media standard, and even the very licensabl
    • by El Torico (732160) on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:49PM (#16746143)
      They're trying to gain market share in a highly competitive market that has one dominant company (I think we all know who), but are unwilling to make the product compatible with their existing service. WTF?

      Then they go on with this -

      The software giant said it would commit millions of dollars to making Zune a success but acknowledged it could take a long time for that success to become apparent.

      They could save a few of those dollars by applying some basic business sense.

      • by Junta (36770)
        They used to at least work at dominating new markets, and used to succeeding, they've stopped trying and just expect markets to roll over for them now...

        Here they obviously have decided that the Zune will be the killer player and they don't need their former partners because "they're microsoft". They screw over existing customers and partners, to bring forth a product that may or may not be adequate (the iPod is sure as hell adequate by the market behavior), all the while not even bothering to undercut the
  • ...and claim that "plays for sure" is an advertising claim that Microsoft has now failed to live up to. :-)
    -JMP
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      But the Zune is not a "plays for sure" device. Just as the iPod is not a "plays for sure" device. The Zune hasn't even been released yet, so it's not like they promised anybody that music they bought would play on the device. I think it's a little underhanded because MS makes the device, that you'd think it would support "plays for sure", however, as long as they don't advertise it as such, I don't think they have done anything wrong. I also think it will show the general public just how bad an idea DRM
    • They had their fingers crossed when they made that promise.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:39PM (#16746009)
    People keep saying DRM isn't inherently evil. Why?

    Over the past week, I've heard a number of people claim that there's nothing inherently evil about DRM: that it's just a neutral tool, and you can do good or evil things with it. I'm always a little surprised to hear this. After all, the media cartel calls it "Digital Rights Management;" that kind of Orwellian doublespeak makes it hard to think positive thoughts about it.

    The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that. It's certainly bad when it keeps me from putting my music on all my devices. It's bad when it keeps me from recording the TV shows I watch, too. And even when it has potential security applications, I think it's bad. Sure, a company could use DRM-like technology to keep its internal correspondence away from competitors and journalists. But do we want to live in a society where the New York Times can't get a copy of the Pentagon Papers?

    If DRM isn't inherently evil, it certainly doesn't have anything going for it.
    • by ResidntGeek (772730) on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:42PM (#16746043) Journal
      that kind of Orwellian doublespeak makes it hard to think positive thoughts about it.
      Then you're not trying hard enough, comrade!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MindStalker (22827)
      Well if you use PGP to sign and encrypt your messages to send you have effectivly used a form of DRM.
      But I digress.
      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        But that's me protecting stuff that I want to protect. I do not want my music protected. I want to be able to play it on any device, and I don't want to have to ask Microsoft for permission to do so. It's the reason I don't buy iTunes, because the next player I buy may not be an iPod, and I don't want to repurchase all of my music, or even have to find some way to break the DRM.
      • by WilliamSChips (793741) <full,infinity&gmail,com> on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:56PM (#16746225) Journal
        No, that's encryption. Encryption is Alice sending a message to Bob while preventing Eve from seeing it.
        DRM is Alice sending a message to Bob while preventing Bob from seeing it.
        DRM is a (moronic) form of encryption, not the other way around.
      • by spitzak (4019)
        Uh, no you havn't. What you are describing is encryption. Encryption *may* be used by DRM, but is not necessary.

        "DRM" means that somehow (magic) a person is able to observe the data but not copy it.

        This is in fact impossible, however you can approach it by trying to prevent high-quality copies by making it difficult to attach a device that can copy the data at a point that the high-quality data is available. A common solution is to use encryption and try to very tightly couple the decryption portion with th
      • by JimDaGeek (983925)
        However, GPG/PGP is meant to secure *PRIVATE* data/content that is never meant for *PUBLIC* distribution. If the media companies want to secure all of their non-public content with GPG/PGP/ETC, so be it, that is their right. The media companies are restricting a *PRODUCT* that I am buying and preventing me from exercising all of the rights that I am given with that purchase. Comparing private security techniques with public rights restrictions is just stupid.
    • by DeadChobi (740395) <DeadChobi AT gmail DOT com> on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:57PM (#16746233)
      minitrue mark speech doubleplusungood. miniluv make writer unlive plusquick
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have
      No, it's not. The point is to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted material [webopedia.com]. The drawbacks of its implementation may include preventing a legitimate licensee from playing the audio or video files on his/her various devices, but that is most definitely not the original intent.
      • by Secrity (742221) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:16PM (#16746409)
        "The drawbacks of its implementation may include preventing a legitimate licensee from playing the audio or video files on his/her various devices, but that is most definitely not the original intent."

        It might be possible that it wasn't the original intent of content providers to use DRM to force users to buy multiple copies of the same material in order to use it on multiple devices, but I am sure that they now consider it to be a dandy feature; a feature that they don't want to lose.
      • by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot.kadin@xoxFREEBSDy.net minus bsd> on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:17PM (#16746425) Homepage Journal
        All depends on whose Kool-Aid you're drinking.

        I find it impossible to not believe that one of the key selling points of DRM, is that it forces a consumer to re-purchase the same content over and over and over.

        You want to listen to a track on your portable player? Sure, $1.
        Want to listen to it on your cell phone? $2.50.
        Want to burn it to a CD, maybe another $0.50.
        Want to stream it over the internet, so you can hear it from your office/friend's computer/wherever? You're S.O.L.

        You say it's to prevent "illegal distribution" but I'd argue that it could just as easily be to prevent format and space-shifting, since the 'loss' due to format shifting (if you consider the income that they wouldn't receive as a result of space and format-shifting a 'loss') is probably equal if not greater than the losses due to interpersonal sharing. With 'ideal' DRM, you could charge consumers per-track, per-listen, and then charge for every format and every possible way to enjoy the content. The revenue possibilities are unimaginable. Only the shortsighted see it as just a method to prevent seventh-graders from swapping discs.

        At the end of the day it's academic whether the intent is to prevent "piracy" and it also prevents format-shifting, or whether it's intended to do both from the vary beginning. In most implementations, it does do both.

        In my mind, regardless of what effect it might have on piracy, if it curtails established consumer rights or Fair Use, then it ought to be unacceptable. My ability to listen to the same piece of legitimately purchased music in various locations and in various formats is not an 'acceptable loss' in some epic battle between the valiant protectors of Intellectual Property and the American Way and the Evil Pirates.
      • The point is to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

        That's what the hardware manufacturers might tell you. However, the actual point of DRM hardware is to stake out a vertical region of the digital media and digital player market, wall it off with proprietary formats and patents, lock customers into the region, and lock competitors out. This way, the hardware manufacturers can now grab a piece of the lucrative media sales pie instead of being relegated to single-digit margins selling li


      • "legal" or "illegal" has nothing to do with DRM.

        DRM does not suddenly unlock with the material is public domain or the copyright is expired or the use is a "fair use".

        Perhaps, DRM attempts to prevent "unauthorized" use or distribution.

        Yes, I know the marketing with pirates and stuff, wants you to think that this is a natural way of preventing illegal activity similar to robbing boats.

        But DRM is a distribution and use control mechanism.
        DRM does not prevent activity according to legal code. It prevents activi
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by rm999 (775449)
          ""legal" or "illegal" has nothing to do with DRM."

          Not true in the USA. If you attempt to get around it and you live in the USA you are likely breaking the law.

          See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Co pyright_Act [wikipedia.org]

          "DRM does not suddenly unlock with the material is public domain or the copyright is expired or the use is a "fair use"."

          Very good point - in theory. But when the copyright expires, people will likely be using an entirely different technology. For example, music that is coming out of co
    • Well, I don't pay attention to any position that uses the absolutist word "evil" to describe opposition to a rights management technology. To me, evil means rapists, murderers, Hitler, and professional wrestling. When people use the word evil, they're using hyperbole and emotional connotation to try to convince people of a position, and it just turns me off. Convince me using facts and reason, pros and cons. Don't tell me some copyright protection scheme is evil, because it's just stupid geek hyperbole.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mblase (200735)
      Reminder to self: don't feed the trolls anymore.

      The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that. It's certainly bad when it keeps me from putting my music on all my devices.

      The problem is that many people fail to see that locking WMA files to Microsoft Plays For Sure devices is essentially no different than locking your DVD purchases to a DVD player.

      But do we want to live in a society where the New York Times can't get a copy of the
      • by Baricom (763970) on Monday November 06, 2006 @11:16PM (#16746983)
        The problem is that many people fail to see that locking WMA files to Microsoft Plays For Sure devices is essentially no different than locking your DVD purchases to a DVD player.
        First of all, DVDs aren't locked to a specific DVD player - DRM-infected media is. Beyond that subtle point, I agree with you - that's why I don't buy encrypted DVDs.

        So, classified government documents are inherently evil, too?
        No, but the privilege of keeping documents secret is abused far too often. I would argue it's abused more often than it's used correctly. Of course, because I don't get to see what's classified, I can't know this for sure.

        If you want to own a copy of someone else's intellectual property
        Hold on there. The property belongs to the public; we're just renting it to the creators for a limited amount of time to reward them for benefitting the public good.

        The intellectual property isn't anything you have a human right to
        The Constitution of the United States would seem to disagree with you. It may not be a human right, but it's a granted right nonetheless.

        if you don't like the restritions, don't make the purchase. It's that simple.
        It's not that simple. The movie in the movie theater, the music on the CD, and the software in my computer? I own it, along with my neighbors. By intentionally making it hard to use, the media companies are stealing my property from me. It's no different than if I borrowed your car and forgot to return it for your entire lifetime.

        The rich media companies would like you to believe that they are hounded by criminals every day, but that's simply not the case. They are the guilty party.

        And no, I'm not a troll.
  • why, if I do, I still buy normal CDs.

    Different player? Doesn't support my current format. Well, if everything breaks, I can always re-rip them and do not need to re-buy them.
    • Re:Another reason (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigbigbison (104532) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:06PM (#16746323) Homepage
      I've more or less just sworn off buying music period. The last time I went to buy a cd, I spent ten minutes examining the small print to make sure it wasn't broken with copy protection of its own.

      Call me crazy but I don't want to feel like an untrusted criminal for BUYING music. Treat me like a criminal, then I might as well act like one.
  • That's why I don't buy DRM'ed music. But instead copy music legally for my personal use, using my right to private copying (see the Canadian Copyright Act [justice.gc.ca]).
  • Supporting the Apple Monopoly on Music doesn't sound like such a bad idea, eh?
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Since when does Apple have a monopoly on music? There's these places called music stores. You can find them in malls. They sell music on shiny plastic discs. These discs are easily copied onto your computer, and onto any portable device. You can play them in your car, on your home stereo, and in many other places.
      • by JimDaGeek (983925)
        I agree with you that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on "music". However, they do have an effective monopoly on digital on-line music sales. IMO, that is nothing to cry about. As you pointed out, anyone can get off their bums and go to a mall. Though I would counter that with, you don't even need to go to a mall. Go on www.amazon.com and buy all the music CD's that you want. Sadly though, more and more music CD's are getting DRM to try to stop you from copying them so that you can play them on your por
    • At least it plays well on my iPod. I think Microsoft is Blowing it chance to be a serious competitor to the iPod. Microsoft spent so much time on perfecting the hardware and software (eligibly) but they forgot to get people (including themselves) to have product for it. Get an iPod download iTunes it works both on you Mac and Windows (Better then windows only) and bang your in music heaven. Vs. paying the same (or near the same price) for zunes Install whatever Zune Software or use Crap Windows stuff.
    • How about supporting your local CD store? Call me nuts, but I'd rather spend my money locally, insteasd of with some large, faceless corporation that's only interest is in my wallet.
  • (Pointing at MS Plays-for-Sure)

    "Ha ha - you've been usurped! That's right, I said usurped."
    • Ha Ha indeed.
      But doesn't the usurpee have to have power to begin with for the usurper to take it?
      The MP3 player market has been pretty solid for Apple the last few years. I think this is more of MS blowing their chance to BE usurpers.
  • as "Plays Who Knows the Hell Where?"
  • Now, who exactly is the target audience? People too stupid to know better?
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Is that the same target audience that continues to use IE, even though they've gotten tons of virus from simply visiting a web site, or continue to use windows, even though they've gotten viruses from doing nothing except hooking their computer up to the internet? Sounds like a pretty large target audience to me.
      • Is that the same target audience that continues to use IE

        IE comes bundled with your PC and most people are barely aware of things like firefox. This is a piece of hardware that you have to buy. Besides, are you really suggesting that MS shovel any old crap out there and hope people buy it?

      • Is that the same target audience that continues to use IE, even though they've gotten tons of virus from simply visiting a web site

        How are they expected to know any better? Sure, if you read technical publications you know that zero-day exploits for IE are common, but how many of them make the mainstream press? And how many of those that do tell you that there are other options that don't have the same issues? To a lot of people, the concept of a web browser as an application separate from the web si

  • by suzerain (245705) on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:45PM (#16746083) Homepage
    This would of course be a huge problem...if MSN Music had any customers.
  • It's doublespeak - like Windows Genuwine or Darl telling us how licensing will 'get you clean...' DRM in any form is a scam - this is proof of the obvious.

  • by Deathbane27 (884594) on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:50PM (#16746157)
    "Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices... We will not be performing compatibility testing for non-Zune devices, and we will not make changes to our software to ensure compatibility with non-Zune devices."

    I fail to see anything the article says being backed up by anything Microsoft said.

    It says the Zune marketplace content is not Plays For Sure content. It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.
    • by dusanv (256645)
      No, he understood it fine, you aren't. Quote from the article (right at the top of it):

      But in a move that could alienate some customers, MSN-bought tracks will not be compatible with the new gadget.

      and:

      In addition to causing problems for existing MSN-customers hoping to transfer files to the Zune player, the move could also leave users and manufacturers of other Plays For Sure compatible devices out in the cold.

      Sleep with the devil, wake up with the fleas...
    • by mybecq (131456)

      Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem...

      It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.

      Let me help you.

      Zune Player [zune.net] says:
      Import your media from iTunes®, Windows Media® Player.[3]
      [3] Zune software can import audio files in unprotected .WMA, MP3, AAC; photos in JPEG; and videos in .WMV, MPEG-4, H.264.


      Don't you think if it was a Plays For Sure device that that would be part of their marketing??

    • by MojoStan (776183) on Monday November 06, 2006 @11:12PM (#16746947)

      I fail to see anything the article says being backed up by anything Microsoft said.

      It says the Zune marketplace content is not Plays For Sure content. It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.

      Yes, the article's submitter lacks reading comprehension, but other articles have made it pretty clear that Microsoft's Zune player will not play PlaysForSure content. Your comment isn't explicitly claiming that Zune players will play PlaysForSure content, but some readers might think it's possible. It's almost certainly not. Zune has been hyped by MS for some time now and will launch in just 8 days. Don't you think PlaysForSure (content) playback would be a great big feature that MS would hype for its Zune player? I'm hoping MS comes to it's senses and adds PlaysForSure compatibility to Zune players at a later date.

      Anyhoo, here's part of an Engadget interview with J Allard [engadget.com], MS Corporate Vice President, that discusses the Zune player's compatibility with PlaysForSure content. To me, Allard's answers seem like evasive bullshit mixed with promotional bullshit, but it's pretty clear the Zune player will not (initially) play PlaysForSure content:

      ===================

      So up until this point Microsoft's digital music strategy has been largely to create an ecosystem and be a supplier of a DRM platform to manufacturers and online music stores. PlaysForSure was the thrust of Microsoft's strategy until the announcement of the Zune. How does PlaysForSure fit into Microsoft's strategy going forward? It doesn't appear that the Zune will be compatible with any PlaysForSure retailers. How does that affect Microsoft's current partners who rely on PlaysForSure?

      I think there's two answers to the question. First answer is, this whole digital music revolution is really just starting. There's still a lot to be figured. We certainly don't think we have it all figured out, and we think there will be change. The second thing is that specifically when it comes to PlaysForSure, think about you might buy a Windows PC versus how my mother might buy a Windows PC. My mom calls up Dell and says, "I have seven hundred bucks, get me a computer. What's the best thing I can get?" She doesn't specify the keyboard, the monitor, the memory configuration. The conversation might get as specific as, "Do you think you want to burn DVDs?" Then she gets a product that shows up and it's all pre-installed.

      There are other people that go to Fry's Electronics and hand pick the graphics card, the case for their computer, they build a Windows-based PC from the ground up. We have a solution for both of those things. We at Microsoft have a platform that is Windows, we have a solution for the crowd of consumers that are very deliberate about how they build their PC solution, and we also have a solution for people who just want turnkey. And I think that's how these two strategies complement each other. The PlaysForSure is still a program we're going to invest in, we still have a lot of partners there, and for a class of consumers who that want to have a hand-crafted media media experience and maximize their choice, we have an answer. There's another class of consumers that just want to get digital media, and they just want to be able to go to one store and have it all just plain, dead simple, and don't want to know what a codec is.

      Wasn't that the point of PlaysForSure?

      Well, it's like asking a question about Windows -- and the point of Windows was to bring personal computing to the world -- some people are going to pick their PCs, they're going to pick their monitor, they're going to pick their printer, they're going to pick their graphics card, and combine the things that they've chosen. Other people just a want a system that's end-to-end -- all compatible out of the gate -- and that's what Zune

  • I'm sure Zune is not a Plays for Sure product so Microsoft could convince their partners that Zune doesn't compete with them. Any PfS user would be unlikely to move to Zune due to the cost of refilling the library. Of course, PfS subscription users would be OK - assming Zune has a subscription feature of its own (does it? I'm not sure).

    The thing is, the same could be said for iPod users: they're unlikely to switch to Zune if they can't move their purchased songs...assuming that they actually bought their so
    • by DeadChobi (740395)
      If, in the end, our only two choices are the iPod and the Zune, then we, as consumers, have all lost. Sure, the iPod *looks* slick, but the 4 year old Rio player that I have has a better interface. Granted it isn't a smooth, flat card, but I actually like the way it looks. It would really suck for me if I couldn't get anything other than an iPod, as I don't particularly care for them.

      In short, I would like the opportunity to be different even if I never get to take advantage of it.
  • Dang - another hole in the foot!
  • I had a chance to ask Robbie Bach, the president of Microsoft's entertainment & devices division, why the Zune wouldn't support PlaysForSure DRM'd songs. His answer was actually pretty heartening. PlaysForSure has to support a wide range of players, because the specification for PlaysForSure players is somewhat loose. Regardless, they want a very tight system with the Zune -- you buy music from the Microsoft store, and put it on the Zune, and It Just Works®. Allowing PlaysForSure music on the de
    • by Tony (765)
      How would that break the system? The iPod supports other music formats, not just Fairplay. The Zune could support PlaysForSure, which Microsoft pushed onto *other* PMP vendors, *and* Microsoft's PlaysForZune (or whatever). Then this wouldn't be a slashdot article at all.

      This is really a bizarre move that makes it seem like Microsoft just wants an iron fist, to make sure the Zune only works with their music store and doesn't work with anything else at all, forcing customers to their music store.

      This is why t
    • by iluvcapra (782887)

      they don't want to focus on supporting a wide range of different devices

      The issue at hand is not supporting a wide range of PlaysForSure devices. The Zune is the issue. Why can't the Zune play PlaysForSure media?

      Or can it? The article is extremely confusing, because the official statement from Microsoft says basically:

      Prop 1: (Set of Zune Media) INTERSECTION (Set of Media supported on PlaysForSure player) == (Some Zune Media)
      Prop 2: (Set of Zune Media) NOT EQUAL (Set of Media supported on PlaysForSu

  • In the foot. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by X-treme-LLama (178013)
    Way to go Microsoft. You took the gun, loaded it, aimed it squarely at Apple and the iPod, and then turned it around and shot yourself in the foot.

    I'm not an MS basher any more than saying I don't like most of their software. I don't think they're utterly evil... But wow, that takes a special commitment to poor business decisions. Launch an system called "plays for sure" and then manufacture a incompatible product. I'm impressed.

    What's sad is that they'll still probably sell a few to people who can't see pa
  • by v1 (525388) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:13PM (#16746375) Homepage Journal
    a Microsoft spokesperson said: 'Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices.'"

    Just when you thought microsoft could not pull anything stupider than they had lately... I mean really, what is this? Yes we have here a standard and we are backing it and we are making it the universally compatible technology, but wait, except for this major new product we're releasing. Doesn't this just incredibly piss off everyone - the customers, the manufacturers, the retailers? What on earth could they possibly be getting in exchange for all this horrid customer ill-will?

    Bad Bill! No cookie!
    • by Shados (741919)
      I thought Bill was (at least partly) out of the picture now :) But yeah, this is totally retarded. I really wonder who the guy who thought that up was thinking when he woke up...
  • From the article Microsoft said that its Windows Media Player will recognize Zune content which might make it possible to put the content on a Plays For Sure device. However, it said it would not provide customer support to anyone attempting this.

    They just say that they won't provide support for getting the music on the device. Its clear from the statement that if they were on the player it would work.

    I really don't understand why people want to make up stories about microsoft. There is enough abou
  • ...realize that if you give douchebags, er, sorry, capitalists and habitual defectors, a mechanism for screwing you over (e.g. DRM), they will screw you over. And that's basically what RMS has been fighting against. And this little scam is yet another proof of that.
  • Dramatic Irony
    n.

    3b - incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play

    On the stage that is consumer electronics, with the observer that is the consumer, and the actor that is the manufacturer - when the manufacturer creates a market paradox in which its service and product are incompatible... Awww hell,

    What in the name of Sam Hill was Microsoft thinking!?!?!?!

  • Will it run linux? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Normally I'm not the type of person to ask this question. But the Zune looks like some really interesting hardware that just isn't being used right, especially with regard to its wireless capability. Is there any chance to get linux on this thing so I can just do whatever I want with it, or is DRM implemented in hardware?
  • Microsoft: I can't believe you fell for the oldest trick in the book. What a goof. What's with you man? Come on. You know what? No, here let me give your music back to you.

    Microsoft: Oh, look. You fell for that, too. I can't believe it man.

    Microsoft: So, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
  • by Cytlid (95255) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:47PM (#16746743)
    Aww cut em a break, people! They're, you know, redefining themselves. Being hip and cool-like. Like the next Apple! Or those crazy Linux and open source people, all get to do it, wether it's a new distribution or waay out in left field with the *BSD fruit. Why don't you all find another mega billion dollar company to pick on!
  • Apple: Thinks of everything. Literally anything you can think to try just works on their gear.

    Microsoft: Product development managed by a large but finite number of monkeys. Apparently this is not enough to produce great works. Their solution? Add more monkeys.

  • That word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

    For that matter, neither does "Plays for sure".
  • Plays For Sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DieByWire (744043) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @01:34AM (#16748157)
    For very small values of 'for sure.'

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.

Working...