It is probably bad form to comment on your own posts - but I want to elaborate. The real reason for the DRM in Vista is no doubt the effort to lock competitors out of the market. Why am I confident that it won't work for Microsoft? As I pointed out, this has worked for Apple to a certain extent. Apple has some success because their business competitors can't legally produce compatible machines that play itunes music. Why is it that Microsoft won't be able to kill free software by forcing all hardware to be incompatible? The answer is: either they have the market power to do it or they don't. If they had the market power to do it, they would have done it long since. Since they don't, trying to do it secretly in the form of DRM isn't going to help. Do you really suppose that all peripheral manufacturers in the world are going to produce only peripherals that won't work with any system except Microsoft? The switch from Windows to Linux is no longer a big one - all that is needed is a compelling reason. Microsoft seems to being doing their best to provide one. That means a huge market for peripheral manufacturers who aren't Microsoft premium content compatible.

First off, I am genuinely shocked; I had no idea that anyone used the data that the SOI puts out. Second, I feel this does not bode well for Microsoft. Enhancing their own DRM while Apple's has been recently cracked knowing we are likely to soon see increased Ipod/Itunes usability. It almost seems as if Apple is taking a lesson from Microsoft's playbook. Finally, and I wonder, how much of what Microsoft is doing is to prevent future litigation? I know they give $1 from each Zune they sell to Universal Music Group which some say is an attempt to cost Apple money but, pragmatically, I see it as a combination of the two. Any ideas?