Two Giant Steps Backward

Everyone seems to be talking about Palladium, Microsoft's DRM solution. The Register has a great analysis of the Newsweek article. Some analysis of my own:

Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy.

Palladium is about corporations deciding whether you are trustworthy, and the answer is always an emphatic no. You don't own anything; with Palladium, everything is a rental.

Stops viruses and worms.

Hasn't Microsoft been trying to do this for years and failed miserably every time? Why should we believe that they can do it now?

Cans spam.

Bullshit. Using a DRM, "trusted user" model for the elimination of spam requires extremely widespread (nearing ubiquitous) use of a single system, otherwise perfectly valid email from people who don't use it gets trashed. And who's going to upgrade to a system that is less capable than the one you're using now?

They're talking about this scheme being rolled out in 2004. There's going to be a huge demand for hardware and software in the next two years in an attempt to get the latest-and-greatest without these restrictions, because it is in Microsoft's (and Intel's, and AMD's) best interest to stop selling any unrestricted products as soon as possible. After that, demand is going to drop steeply, because nobody will want to give up features for a little bit of speed.

What the real issue here is, what will happen to people who decide not to use Windows? Microsoft, once again, is positioning themselves for a monopoly, this time in the realm of online video and audio. What if the RIAA choose to release all content so that it is only viewable or audible on a Windows system? Will Apple take up the opposing view with a marketing campaign like "Apple: We Trust You?" It's going to get interesting.

Or maybe it doesn't matter; apparently, The End Is Nigh.