It is often said that the success of Linux at the desktop will first and foremost depend on the wide, Windows-like availability of applications and games. Personally, however, I believe that Digital Rights Management (DRM) is potentially a much bigger threat to the success of the Linux desktop than the limited availability of applications and games in comparison to Windows. The move towards web-based applications continues, reducing the importance/relevance of users' local platform/operating system; this trend is related to the arrival of 'Web 2.0'. Furthermore, games may nowadays be popular with both the young and old, but this mainly concerns console gaming, i.e. Xbox or Playstation2; the contingent of users who base their choice of PC platform on the related availability of games is in my belief very small indeed. DRM, on the other hand, may seriously limit the uptake of the Linux desktop among consumers as major DRM systems tend to ignore it, either for competitive reasons (Microosft, Apple) or lack of scale (Adobe, IP TV initiatives).
DRM offers Microsoft a very powerful and effective weapon to enforce its desktop monopoly. Advertising its Windows Media DRM as 'a proven platform to protect and securely deliver content for playback on a computer, portable device or network device,' Microsoft omits to explain that the related codecs (encoder/decoder) are only available for the Windows platform as part of its own Windows Media Player. Hence, third party content that is protected using Windows Media DRM is only available to Windows users. Apple, in that sense, is less restrictive. Its DRM system, Fairplay, caters to both the Macintosh and Windows platform, allowing users of these platforms to watch protected movies (Quicktime), buy music (iTunes Music Store) and listen to that purchased music on their desktop (iTunes). But while the decision to support the competing Windows platform is obviously related to the latter's market share, Apple is unlikely to bring Fairplay to other competitive platforms such as Linux. Hence, Linux users will be locked out from consuming DRM-based content; to do so, they will need to have access to another desktop environment as well. As perosnal computers morph into personal media centers, Microsoft is using DRM to tie the average conumer to its Windows platform, maintaining and enforcing its desktop monopoly.
Two other examples of DRM-related issues Linux users may run into involve e-books and IP TV. Although Adobe offers a Linux-version of its popular Acrobat Reader, this version does not include the e-book reader found in the Windows and Mac versions of the software. This excludes Linux users from buying and reading protected e-books from, for example, Amazon.com. Similarly, my ISP's IP TV service requires the use of Windows Media Player, thereby excluding users of any other platform from this service. While these limitations are likely to stem from the fact that it would not be economically feasible to support smaller platforms, they pose another threat to the future success of the Linux desktop.
So, maybe the EU should not force Microsoft to offer a copy of the Windows operating system without its Windows Media Player pre-installed, but force it to make versions of that player available on other platforms instead. Ideally, all DRM systems should be forced to be available for all major platforms/ operating systems as to ensure that they do not obstruct fair competition at the platform/OS level. Until that time, DRM stands for DRaMa to the Linux desktop and its users.
DRM offers Microsoft a very powerful and effective weapon to enforce its desktop monopoly. Advertising its Windows Media DRM as 'a proven platform to protect and securely deliver content for playback on a computer, portable device or network device,' Microsoft omits to explain that the related codecs (encoder/decoder) are only available for the Windows platform as part of its own Windows Media Player. Hence, third party content that is protected using Windows Media DRM is only available to Windows users. Apple, in that sense, is less restrictive. Its DRM system, Fairplay, caters to both the Macintosh and Windows platform, allowing users of these platforms to watch protected movies (Quicktime), buy music (iTunes Music Store) and listen to that purchased music on their desktop (iTunes). But while the decision to support the competing Windows platform is obviously related to the latter's market share, Apple is unlikely to bring Fairplay to other competitive platforms such as Linux. Hence, Linux users will be locked out from consuming DRM-based content; to do so, they will need to have access to another desktop environment as well. As perosnal computers morph into personal media centers, Microsoft is using DRM to tie the average conumer to its Windows platform, maintaining and enforcing its desktop monopoly.
Two other examples of DRM-related issues Linux users may run into involve e-books and IP TV. Although Adobe offers a Linux-version of its popular Acrobat Reader, this version does not include the e-book reader found in the Windows and Mac versions of the software. This excludes Linux users from buying and reading protected e-books from, for example, Amazon.com. Similarly, my ISP's IP TV service requires the use of Windows Media Player, thereby excluding users of any other platform from this service. While these limitations are likely to stem from the fact that it would not be economically feasible to support smaller platforms, they pose another threat to the future success of the Linux desktop.
So, maybe the EU should not force Microsoft to offer a copy of the Windows operating system without its Windows Media Player pre-installed, but force it to make versions of that player available on other platforms instead. Ideally, all DRM systems should be forced to be available for all major platforms/ operating systems as to ensure that they do not obstruct fair competition at the platform/OS level. Until that time, DRM stands for DRaMa to the Linux desktop and its users.
