Microsoft Kills WMP for Mac. | The Coffeehouse

nektar

According to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/software/Macintosh/osx/default.aspx, Microsoft will hault development of WMP for Mac and will stop providing support for it. Some users are voicing opinions at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/community/newsgroups/WindowsMedia/default.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.windowsmedia.player.mac the MS newsgroups.
At the same time, Microsoft has made an agreement with a 3rd party to provide a plugin for Apple Quicktime that will enable Mac users to play WMA and WMV files in Quicktime on their Mac. In the newsgroups, users report that the provided plugin is buggy and on the web many Mac users are disappointed with Microsoft's decision to stop developments of WMP for Mac, especially as it comes just two days after MS had promised continued Mac support and a new Office for Mac agreement. Why was this decision made at this time and so quietly?
The biggest problem of course is that the new Quicktime plugin, unlike WMP for Mac, cannot play back files protected with Windows Media DRM.
I have two questions for MS emploies in the Windows Media Group (they still have no blog!) which is time, after all these years, to start addressing:
1. Since Windows Media Video will become a standard (I am not sure about audio) why don't you make it easier for developers to create solutions that run on other platforms eg. Linux? The licensing site says nothing about other platforms and talks only about portable devices. The Windows Media site is in a mess anyway. It is more like an advertisement of WMA/WMV and does not help developers find info easily. Google would have had and much simpler site which would certainly help its image of "openness". Will WM Audio be standardized as well?
2. Why don't you make DRM available on other platforms? If you want Windows Media to be popular then it should be democratic enough to run wherever the user is and not only on Windows. After all, Yahoo!, Real, Adobe and other companies make software for Windows, the Mac and Linux and thus become so popular and widely trusted and accepted, eg. PDF and Real Player and server.
Finally a bonus question: Aren't you afraid of Google?
Google has announced that they will make their own DRM format and based on previous Google moves (Google Talk service, Search APIS, etc) we may suppose that their scheme will be open (perhaps even open source) and available on all platforms, not only on Windows. Otherwise, why did they choose to develop their own DRM instead of using the MS solution?
If Microsoft wishes Windows Media to be successful then why isn't it available on all platforms? Shouldn't it be available freely for it to be trusted and widely popular? After all, if Windows Media Formats on the one hand and Windows Media DRM on the other are closed then there will always be mistrust of Microsoft by Unix/Linux/Mac users. After all, how can a big music shop or media company use Windows Media DRM if such a system shuts out users of other operating systems except Windows? Isn't it more likely that online music shops will choose an more open format that will support all platforms, 100% of the population instead of 90%? Google?
I am sure that if there was a standardized, less costly or more platform independent DRM scheme then Windows Media DRM would have had no chance. What is your opinion? Are we ever going to get an answer from the Windows Media Group on the issues surrounding Windows Media licensing on other platforms and what is their standardization story behind DRM?

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

Good. It's better to open the content type than to make a half-hearted player.

BryanF

I'd take this with a grain of salt until I get a second source, but according to Paul Thurrot, Apple refused to provide the technical details necessary to implement Windows Media DRM on OSX, so Microsoft decided to cut bait and spend their money elsewhere. In other news, Microsoft's hardware group is coming out with a keyboard designed specifically for the Mac, but it doesn't have an Apple key because Apple wouldn't let them use their trademarks. Spiteful little b*tches, aren't they?

Source.

DoomBringer
Doom!

BryanF wrote:

I'd take this with a grain of salt until I get a second source, but according to Paul Thurrot, Apple refused to provide the technical details necessary to implement Windows Media DRM on OSX, so Microsoft decided to cut bait and spend their money elsewhere. In other news, Microsoft's hardware group is coming out with a keyboard designed specifically for the Mac, but it doesn't have an Apple key because Apple wouldn't let them use their trademarks. Spiteful little b*tches, aren't they?
Source.

They take after Steve Jobs, who is a mega-spiteful idiot. And Apple tries to cast themselves as the good guys and a pariah.0
Anyhow, yeah, it'd be better for Microsoft to provide the ability to play in QT. When is Apple going to do the same for WMP? Or are they too snobbish and arrogant?

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

DoomBringer wrote:

They take after Steve Jobs, who is a mega-spiteful idiot. And Apple tries to cast themselves as the good guys and a pariah.0
Anyhow, yeah, it'd be better for Microsoft to provide the ability to play in QT. When is Apple going to do the same for WMP? Or are they too snobbish and arrogant?

I vote that Microsoft builds an emu layer and any docs or whatnot you compose in OSX on the new Macs if you dual boot with Vista can have Native applications. Screw ever having to boot back into OSX when Vista will do it all... then protect it so that Apple can't do it back Wink

BryanF

That kind of eye for an eye retaliation is tempting, though I'm afraid it wouldn't be productive and indeed would probably backfire and leave Microsoft looking really bad--despite the fact that Apple's the bully in this case. So long as Apple has a lock on the digital music market, I don't see this changing. Apple's customers certainly won't demand openness on principle; the motto of the Mac fan, I'm afraid, is "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

(FYI: I just noticed that same source I referenced also notes that the latest version of iTunes installs spyware on the system to serve targeted ads. Let the good times roll... or not.)

Sad

Michael Griffiths
Fatalism.

[quote user="BryanF"](FYI: I just noticed that same source I referenced also notes that the latest version of iTunes installs spyware on the system to serve targeted ads. Let the good times roll... or not.)/quote]

Targeted ads, yes, but....

Apples doesn't collect the data.

BryanF

Michael Griffiths wrote:
[quote user="BryanF"]Targeted ads, yes, but....

Apples doesn't collect the data.

Well, that much is certainly good to hear. Thanks for the correction.

rjdohnert
You will never know success until you know failure

BryanF wrote:

I'd take this with a grain of salt until I get a second source, but according to Paul Thurrot, Apple refused to provide the technical details necessary to implement Windows Media DRM on OSX, so Microsoft decided to cut bait and spend their money elsewhere. In other news, Microsoft's hardware group is coming out with a keyboard designed specifically for the Mac, but it doesn't have an Apple key because Apple wouldn't let them use their trademarks. Spiteful little b*tches, aren't they?
Source.

For those of you who will say Darwin is open Source so Microsoft could easily figure out how to get DRM to work, its not that simple, Darwin may be open Source but Core Audio and Core Video are not and these I take it are the modules Microsoft needs to tie into for DRM to work While I still believe Apple has the best mix of Open Source and Proprietary worlds, their Proprietary part keeps Apple in control.

brichpmr

Microsoft has done a piss-poor job of developing WMP for the Mac...ironic since QT works the same on my XP boxen as my OSX system (more than adequate).

I'm very happy to avoid Microsoft's DRM-protected offerings on the Mac side of the computing ocean...YMMV.