About a year ago, it was revealed
that I was the benefactor for the
$200,000 Linux on Xbox
project. The goal was to get Linux running on an
Xbox without making any hardware changes. Many people
perceived the project as a jab at Microsoft. It wasn't. Others thought
it was an
attempt to get publicity for
Linspire. It wasn't (they used another
Linux product). In fact, I did it in
secret so the focus would be on the technical challenge and the
implications of closed hardware. Only after the project leaders begged
me to disclose my name because it would bring more attention to the
effort did I allow them to tell the press. Though the project did not
achieve its full technical goal, still $150,000 was distributed. To
me
it was money well spent because it raised awareness of the biggest
threat to personal ownership in the digital age - DRM (Digital
Restrictions Management).
In spite of sharing the insides
with a
traditional PC, the Xbox has
a dramatic and dangerous difference. A PC buyer can install any
software or hardware that they wish. They own the machine and can
change it to suit their needs - true ownership. There are no
limitations. This open architecture is largely responsible for the
two-decade personal computer revolution. With an Xbox, the user is
merely
renting the box. Microsoft decides what software (games) users can load
and even how they can use it. When it connects to the net, Microsoft
can
and has instructed the machine to change its behavior to block certain
users, functionality or software that it does not agree with. They are
changing the rules after you purchase it to suit their needs and not
your needs.
The Xbox served as the training wheels for Microsoft's new Longhorn
operating
system, which is slipping to a 2007 launch. Like the Xbox, Longhorn
will limit
what software you can load. In the guise of "security", Microsoft is
trying to
dramatically change the way PCs work. Instead of the owner deciding
what software they want to install and run, Microsoft is seizing that
power from them. Under the smokescreen of security, they are
pronouncing
that it is good for Microsoft to decide what software you can use.
It's the ultimate marketing
challenge to explain to the world that turning over more control to
Microsoft is an improvement
that computer users should desire and pay money for. Microsoft has
floated a series of hyper-technical sounding initiatives like Palladium
and Next-Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB), each time explaining
why it's a good thing for Microsoft to decide what software users
should
use. Earlier this week, Bill Gates talked about how it was like a
"black
box flight recorder," a not-so-subtle reference to 9/11 designed to tug
on emotions. I leave it to others to comment on whether Microsoft has
the security track record to decide what software is secure enough for
me to be running. I'm more interested in the liberty and cost issues.
Some of you may be wondering why having choice over software is a
"liberty" issue. We are quickly moving to a world where every
communication, document, photo, song and movie is digitized and living
on a PC or PC-like device. Software is the gateway to access parts of
those elements. Without control over the software, there is no
control of the underlying digital item. Your access can be taken away
or modified at anytime. No control means you do not have ownership. This would be like buying
a new home and then finding
out that someone else has the keys to the front door and they control
your access in and out of the home. You'd hardly feel like a home
"owner" in such a situation.
Let me give you a concrete example. The biggest deployment of software
control is Apple Computer's iTunes. Unbeknown to
most users, all the music purchased from iTunes music store is only
accessible from iTunes software because of DRM limitations. Buyers
can't decide to listen to their songs on other software or even other
hardware devices - Apple decides that, and they can change the rules
when it suits them. (Apple states this in their Terms of Use.)
Unfortunately this is not a theoretical risk; it has already happened
several times. Apple removed the ability to stream music from your home
and office if they are on different networks. They tightened
restrictions on how many CDs you can burn. They further clamped down on
how many computers can stream the music simultaneously. They've even
altered the iTunes software to limiting interoperability with music
from competitor Real Networks. The problem is that this change all take
place after you purchase the music and will continue to happen
whenever it suits Apple. Music buyers are forced to use
the new software because of bug fixes, security issues and new music
needs they have,
forcing users to meekly swallow the arbitrary
changes Apple makes, which affects their music purchases. This is
analogous to a rental agreement where the landlord can raise the rent,
ban pets, or change other rules on a moment's notice. Now imagine this
same corporate control over every document, photo, video as well as
music file. This is what Microsoft will have and more if they can
dictate what software can be run on your PC with their upcoming
operating system.
I
want to own my property. I want the liberty to decide what software I
use. I want the freedom to listen to music and movies that I pay for on
whatever device I want. I might like iTunes today, Windows Media
tomorrow and Lsongs next
year.
I
want that choice. The world needs
consumers to have that choice so they will always be treated fairly. If
consumers lose the choice they become locked
into one vendor and lose control over the digital products they had
purchased and assumed they "owned."
I
don't think Apple or Microsoft are intentionally evil. I just think
that corporations cannot resist the urge to block competitors and
squeeze customers at every turn. If Microsoft controls what software I
can run, they will charge a lot of money for that software because I
will be locked in. If Apple has control, they will make it only work on
their hardware, which won't be cheap. I don't want any company - even
Linspire - controlling my digital world. If a corporation controls my
PC, my software or how I use my digital property, then I really don't
own it. Historian Lord Acton said it best:
"The danger is not that a
particular
class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern... Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Linspire,
MP3.com, SIPphone, MP3tunes, and all
the other companies I am or have been involved with have steadfastly
stood for open standards. I will continue to champion choice for
consumers so each of us truly can own and control our property,
including the portfolio of digital property consumers are acquiring in
today's ever-expanding
digital
world.
--
Michael
