M$ WiFi-enabled portable media player

I haven't contradicted myself at all.

"too" would imply that we were talking about "lock-down" (as opposed to "lock-in") regarding something else, which we weren't.

DRM'd files have to be decrypted to be played, because they are encrypted; that's what I was talking about in my first comment. I never mentioned illegally circumventing the DRM in that comment, which is why your comment about "BS" didn't make any sense to me.

There is still a fundamental difference between Apple's and Microsoft's DRM that is the basis of my point. Apple's cannot be played on hardware from any other company while Microsoft's can.

Whatever else you may think of Microsoft's practices is the subject of another conversation, and I'd probably agree with you on many of those points, but in this particular discussion, Microsoft's implementation of DRM is much better since it specifically allows for an open market and prevents them from obtaining a monopoly in the way that Apple is attempting.

You should re-read my last comment and not try to catch me since I'll just quote your replies when i catch you on a contradiction.

"too": would also mean that Apple does a lock-"down" too.

Are you talking about playing DRMed music or decrypting meaning to circumvent DRM because if you mean the later, which I thought, that's crazy.

I'm assuming that it would be a monopoly because I'm sure M$ will tie it in with their OS, somehow advertising that WMA from X store is the best, similar to what Apple is doing with mac users, the difference though is Windows is has a 90% share of all desktops.

I'll just admit that I don't like M$ and I hope they restructure everything and I rather not see them produce anything that would become a standard because they suck.

Another one of our epic M$ vs. Apple battles that end up no where.

What did you mean by "too" then? And what were you saying was "BS" on your first comment?

I could only assume you were talking about the first line (re: the lock-in), since the second part (about the decrypting of MS DRM being allowed on other players) is just a statement of fact; that's what makes it different - whereas only Apple products can decrypt Apple DRM'd music.

As for "monopolies", the Microsoft DRM does not do anything to accomplish creating a monopoly, and this article doesn't suggest any changes to their current DRM.

I get it now and I got it then. I agree it's a lock-in, I named the last post after it.

I never called M$ a lock-in for a reason. I did say lock-down but that was essentially just to tie-n the two posts. M$s strategy is only similar because it would create a monopoly similar to Apple.

You're totally missing the point on the whole lock-in thing; which I kind of suspected in our other conversation. It isn't about forcing everyone to use one mode of DRM vs. another, it's about forcing you to buy hardware from a particular company.

Let me reduce it to it's simplest terms:

The reason Apple's DRM is part of a lock-in strategy is because only their players can play it; they won't license it to anyone else, forcing you to buy an iPod if you want to listen to those files on a portable device.

The reason MS's DRM is not part of a lock-in strategy is that any company can make a player that will play their files.

Get it?

You're kidding right because that's BS. Decrypting DRM? So DRM that you can break is not a constricting?

As far as I'm concerned M$'s WMA would be horrible for everyone, i could see WMA being a the next M$ monopoly and not because I rather see Apple have the "monopoly".

That's pretty awesome, and what's even better is it ISN'T "lock-in".

The DRM that Microsoft uses can be decrypted and played by most of the MP3 player models, from various manufacturers out on the market, whereas Apple's will only work on iPods. That's the whole point of the lock-in argument - Apple chooses to lock people in to its devices, while MS offers a model that does not produce lock-in to a particular brand of player.