RIP: PlaysForSure 2004-2007

Microsoft has reached a turning point in its music strategy: admitting it has a problem.

When it first announced its Zune plans last year, the company denied that it would mark an end to its PlaysForSure program, an effort that aimed to unite various compatible devices and services using Microsoft's Windows Media technology.

Others, though, saw the writing clearly on the wall.

Microsoft was in a precarious place, though. It had lined up MTV Networks as a partner for its Urge service, which was to be part of Windows Vista. That service had not even formally launched yet, so it was tough to fully back away from its partnerships, even though the company was clearly planning to go it alone.

This week, Microsoft confirmed, though, that it is no longer planning to fly the PlaysForSure banner. Instead, services and devices can seek the far more generic "Certified for Windows Vista" logo.

Conceived in 2004, PlaysForSure was aimed at helping consumers understand that a wide range of devices and digital music services could be used with one another, boosting a strategy of "choice" as compared with the tight link between iTunes and iPod. With Zune, though, Microsoft decided that Apple was right.

The funny thing is, I think there was--and probably still is--merit to Microsoft's original argument. The problem wasn't the notion of PlaysForSure, it was the fact that the logo often overstated things. Not all PlaysForSure players could support subscription music, for example.

Apple's challenges with the labels, Hollywood studios, and NBC show some reasons why consumers might not want their device to work with only one service. I'd be much more likely to go with a device that could work with many good services than I am to choose Microsoft's lock-in over Apple's.

Is there anyone else who wishes that it was PlaysForSure that had survived the battle of competing music strategies?

[catch23]

I think it will survive

It certainly done better then the Zune Store.<br /><br />And outside of subscription, choosing Apple's DRM stranglehold is as idiotic as choosing MS's or Sony's. <br /><br />Buy CD's; buy DRM free. Investing money in iTunes is like buying the knife that someone will cut your throat with.

[brunodexter]

re:: quit the lies fanbois

Last night I bought 46 DRM free songs from ITMS all <br />encoded at 256 K.<br />Today I'm playing them off my iPod, my Moto Cellphone, <br />and my girlfriends iRiver.<br />Where's the lock-in?

[The_happy_switcher]

Now will they admit

they have a problem with Vista, too?

[Vegaman_Dan]

Will you admit...

...to being nothing but a troll?

[thedreaming]

From Choices to No Choice

I wanted to buy an mp3 this christmas, but didn't want to buy an ipod. I don't like itunes on the pc, it doesn't work very well and spending .99 for each track is stupid when other music stores give you an "all you can eat" subscription model. <br /><br />Now each player will need their own drm scheme and their own player. <br /><br />Look at rhapsody. their sansa e250r uses Rhapsody DNA for drm. Apple has their drm scheme and so does zune.

[applusr]

do you realize

subscriptions you are only renting and when yo end you subscription you don't legally own or have the right to use it.

[DKrudop]

DRM is NOT an Apple device

You all are too busy listening to Microsoft's FUD. DRM is NOT an <br />Apple thing....it's the music cartel that controls that. Have you <br />forgotten (or were you just too unaware to read) Steve Jobs' <br />letter earlier in the year asking that all recording companies <br />remove DRM from their digital recordings? Get your facts <br />straight before you pass on dis-information. It's not Apple that's <br />locking you into anything.......and as for those subscription <br />deals.....what happend when "Certified for Vista" honchos decide <br />to make THOSE non-compatible?? Enjoy!

[streamOG]

Right

One thing Apple does is a very good job of marketing.<br /><br />In fact that letter to the labels was a scam and the whole industry at large saw it to be a scam and laughed.<br /><br />Apple has a lock in on iTunes thanks to their DRM platform.<br /><br />They don't license it because that would kill their monopoly.<br /><br />The record companies would never let Apple remove DRM entirely from their music catalogs. That's not going to happen.<br /><br />Windows Media Rights Manager is still very active in the market as the prevailing DRM platform available for subscriptions or download to own offerings.<br /><br />Rhapsody is a good example.<br /><br />So is Napster.

[bigjim01]

Apple wants lock in

Do you really understand what Apple really wants. They want your abilty to choose taken away. They want to control your computing environment. They want to control how you do what you want to do. DRM is only the latest mechanism to protect copyright in a digital world. When purchase a cd, you are only purchasing the privledge to listen to that recording, you own the phyical media, not the all the rights to the content. This means that you have the right to listen to it on any device that you own, however you don't have the right to post it on the internet for the world to be able to download. If you do the latter, you are criminal because you are stealing. If you don't like the way that DRM works, come up with a better solution to protect copyrights.

[rapier1]

Steve and DRM

Steve Jobs released that letter *after* a european government was <br />starting the process of bringing monopoly charges against Apple <br />because of the DRM lock in. Jobs reacted in a very politically astute <br />way and used it to get ahead of the problem. It was a good move <br />on his part but if he hadn't been prodded by governmental forces I <br />don't think he would have done it.

[dajunga]

PlaysForSure by a new name

Isn't it just a new name for the same thing? According to the site you referenced - Certified for Windows Vista - has the same compatibility and testing requirements for all the devices that support PlaysForSure. It hasn't gone away.

[usarioclave]

iPod != lock-in

Reporters always think that iPod users are locked in. Why? Download torrents, convert them to mp4, then load them on your iPod. Done! Rip your CDs to mp3, load them on your iPod. Done!<br /><br />Oh, I don't like iTunes. So use WinAmp or the other third-party apps that suppor the iPod.<br /><br />Done!<br /><br />Where's the lock-in?

[terminalblue]

well actually...

winamp does support the other ipod...however i am have a Touch and me (and iPhone users) are locked out from third party apps. As of right now Touch and iPhone users HAVE to use iTunes. and i hate every second with it.<br />i feel locked in...there are things that it SHOULD do (where is the "in sync" transcoding?) how about an artist/album view instead of that damn list...you have to have a credit card to have it automatically download cover art (seriously, ***?) its like most of the effort is in the html and flash that powers ITMS and about zero effort went into making the UI as functional as possible.

[SprkJonz]

IPOD!=LOCK-IN

Actually, this year I learned what being locked in means. It's really an issue if you use the Itunes Store &#38; your ipod and you are not tech saavy. <br />Examples: my nephews have bought albums via iTunes so now they can't buy a better mp3 player this year (i.e. Sony) or a Verizon music phone - most of their music wont work on it. My brother-in-law can't convert his itunes song to a ringtone for the Motorola Q. I thought of getting my sister a non-ipod so she could subscribe to Rhapsody. But she's a mac user - so what's the point? My friend used iTunes to store and organize his mp3s. Now that there are other viable options, he cant convert the crazy Apple file structure to a standard tree very easily. <br />With Apple, it's all about being locked in.

[techforumz]

latest ipods are megalock

I advise against the latest ipods because they lock you with the latest itunes, and that could mean that they end mp3 support. Meaning that everyone is suddenly supporting the RIAA unfortunately. I will make a store that's free, and only indie's can get any money.

[calpundit]

What consumers want

From your story: "Apple's challenges with the labels, Hollywood <br />studios, and NBC show some reasons why consumers might not <br />want their device to work with only one service."<br /><br />Exactly which of those three entities represents "consumers"?<br /><br />It seems to me the evidence is pretty strong that Apple's <br />"challenges" are because, in the minds of the labels, studios and <br />NBC, Apple is too successful for their good. iPods keep selling <br />and NPD had iTunes as the #1 online movie and TV download <br />sites.<br /><br />I don't really hear the consumers complaining that much.

[docster87]

surprised MS not super greedy?

I'm a bit surprised that Microsoft isn't going to play for both <br />squads in this battle... One, have the Zune &#38; locked store while <br />offering strong help/backing for a multi-company effort. Get <br />money from as many people as possible.<br /><br />I'll never understand renting music. If I pay $20 a month for five <br />years and then drop the service, well; I end up with NOTHING. If <br />I pay $20 a month at iTunes Store and then hit hard times and <br />can't afford that, well; I STILL CAN ENJOY WHAT I BOUGHT.<br /><br />There is a way (gotta know tech I guess) where you could buy <br />from Apple, convert to mp3 files (couple of steps with the way I <br />found) and then play that music on any device that allows mp3. <br />So while I don't understand renting music I also don't <br />understand all the crying about being locked-in to an iPod if you <br />use iTunes and/or being locked into iTunes if you use an iPod. <br />iTunes ALLOWS you to rip music CDs and pop those on your <br />iPod. No iTunes Store needed. Sure, might be locked into the <br />APPLICATION but not really locked into the WEB STORE....

[LRCasey]

Renting Music

Actually renting music really is pretty good. I pay $6/month to Yahoo and I get to listen to millions of songs for no additional charge. For people that work at a computer most of the day and don't really have a need for a portable music player, having access to millions of songs for $6 months is a great deal. At home, I am able to stream the yahoo music to my Roku Radio for no additional cost.<br /><br />I've discovered all kinds of new music, new artists, and I have been able to listen to a lot of old school music (REO Speedwagon, etc.) that I would never shell out money to buy.<br /><br />If I like a song, I can buy it for $0.79 (alas with DRM).<br /><br />Perhaps renting is not for everyone but for certain groups of people, it's the greatest thing ever.

[ethana2]

hmm.. jamendo.com

I can do whatever the heck I want with my music. Works well for me.<br /><br />I wouldn't touch DRM with a twenty foot pole. I don't even like messing with copyrighted music.<br /><br />If I listen to it and like it, I want to torrent the album, if I don't like it, I want to modify it. In any case, redistributing it easily is important to me. Thus, so much as sampling copyrighted music, for me, is something I consider.. not right.<br /><br />Extreme? Less so every day-- you know, as the number of CC albums explodes and the quality keeps getting better.

[LastAvailableName]

Huh?

What's that? There's yet another confusing **** up in the world of wading through a sea of competing standards just to listen to music? Gee, I'll think about that a little when I listen to the drm free tracks I bought from Amazon on my whichever of the various playback devices I own. Who could have dreamed that just plain old selling somebody something could be the future of digital distribution?

[Dale Sundstrom]

Microsoft likes getting spanked by Apple

Microsoft likes getting spanked by Apple. If not, they better learn to like it, because they keep positioning themselves to be a better target.<br /><br />I'm a happy subscription music user. It's a great option if you like to explore lots of new music (if you don't, it's not). However, Microsoft hasn't been successful promoting it, and this is another bad move. Although I've spent hundreds of dollars happily renting music for years, I've never purchased DRMed music and never will.<br /><br />Forking PlaysforSure into incompatible Zune was a bad and disturbing move, but it didn't affect me directly. Changing it to "Certified for Windows Vista" is so idiotic--it's hard to imagine much non-Zune Windows media stuff surviving. Unfortunately Zune is foolishly based upon the only bad thing about the iPod (a closed ecosystem). I guess I should start looking for alternatives.<br /><br />Microsoft's Reality-Distortion Field apparently allows them to convince themselves that Vista will soon be ubiquitous. And, they should prepare for and encourage this by giving Vista more visibility; Vista-branding all the Zunes and music they expect to sell, even forcing music partners to use Vista branding ('till they're extinguished by Zune). It's crazy; and Microsoft doesn't appear to be coming up for air anytime soon.

[suyts2]

Uhmm, yeh....

The world has been hearing rants like yours for literally decades....still

[NPGMBR]

Re: Microsoft likes getting spanked by Apple

Your comment makes no sense and is full of inaccuracies.

[LRCasey]

What happens to existing PlayForSure Music & Devices

If I have tracks purchased with PlayForSure DRM and a PlayForSure player, what's the impact? I assume my current DRM tracks will play indefinitely? Will I no longer be able to buy PlayForSure DRM songs?

[Dale Sundstrom]

No change for existing tracks

There should be no impact on purchased tracks. WMA-Protected and WMA-Subscription tracks (previously certified as PlaysforSure) should continue to play as long as compatible players exist. You'll be able to buy them too, as long as Yahoo, Napser, etc. keep selling them.<br /><br />There's now just more cause for confusion.

[streamOG]

You are fine your music and video will play fine

The devices are not being discontinued nor is the DRM platform. Only the name has changed. You can still buy content managed with WMRM everywhere including<br /><br />nba.com<br />ufc.com<br />nbddirect.com<br />americanidol.com<br />walmart.com<br />rhapsody.com<br /><br />and many other locations

[iBuzz]

Trying to Understand the Anti-Subscription People

I just don't understand some people.<br /><br />For better or worse, in the U.S. we're living in a throw-away <br />society. We buy our coffee at Starbucks or McDonald's and <br />throw away the cup. We buy disposable cameras, shavers, <br />lighters, pens, diapers, etc. Even with bigger ticket items like <br />computers, TVs, and cell phones, if something breaks, it's <br />usually of less hassle and expensive to just throw the old one <br />out and get a new one. In fact, it seems there are very few <br />things in our lives these days that we keep around for very long.<br /><br />But for some reason, the idea of subscription-based music just <br />doesn't fly with some people. These are the same people who <br />have no problem with spending money on movie theater and <br />concert tickets, cable or satellite TV, Starbucks, and restaurants. <br />This is money spent on entertainment. No one feels entitled to <br />anything more than the memory or satisfaction of the moment <br />when they hand over their money for these services.<br /><br />So why is music so different? It's even more ironic when you <br />consider that most people are probably going to trash their <br />$200-400 iPods and iPhones in two years so they can buy the <br />latest thing.<br /><br />But pay $60-100 a year for music?! Oh no... can't do that. We'll <br />have nothing to show for that money when the year is up. Well, <br />in two years, what are you going to have to show for the $400 <br />you just spent on an iPhone after you toss it and buy the next <br />new thing? What do you have to show for all of the lattes, <br />alcohol, cable TV, and movies that you've paid for and consumed <br />during the past year? Also, record companies never wanted you <br />to own your music forever either. It's by no accident that all <br />physical media has been to made to be so fragile... from vinyl <br />that will eventually skip, to tapes that will wear out, to CDs that <br />will scratch, music has always been delivered on media that <br />would require you to re-purchase what you really want to keep <br />for life. And even with digital media, does anyone really think <br />that we're going to settle on lossy, compressed music formats <br />like MP3 and AAC in 10 years when high-capacity memory <br />devices are cheap and commonplace?<br /><br />I'm not trying to pass judgement here, but just trying to <br />understand why people aren't receptive to music-oriented <br />subscription services when it seems like everything else in this <br />throw-away society seems so temporary. Or is it just that <br />people really got used to getting music for free and are opposed <br />to any scheme that would require them to pay any amount of <br />money for it.<br /><br />I do realize that searching and selecting music in these <br />subscription services does take time and effort. So, if you <br />decide to cancel a subscription, you shouldn't have to close your <br />account and lose your catalog. Ideally, you'd be able to re-<br />subscribe to the same or another service later, and have your <br />entire catalog be there to listen to. And also, why are <br />subscription services tied to a recurring fee? Shouldn't I be able <br />to pay for access to my music catalog just when I want to listen <br />to it?

[Dale Sundstrom]

Subscription is GREAT! (but not for everyone)

If you like to explore lots of new music, subscription is GREAT. But if you already have most of what you want, and limited interest in new stuff, buying the new stuff is better.<br /><br />I love being able to listen to full tracks of anything and put it on my music player. I listen to lots of stuff that I wouldn't buy--and then sometimes come to know and love it.<br /><br />Subscription is just misunderstood and underappreciated by most folks; they don't understand what it's good for.

[Had_to_be_said]

Because, a fundamental-right, is being lost...

That "right" is called "property ownership". In fact, the "media industries" (RIAA, MPAA, certain software-publishers, etc.) would have you believe (having, repeatedly, flatly stated as much) that consumers NEVER "own" (and therefore truly, personally, control) the individual-copies of the "content" they have paid for. Another name for this type of situation... is a "serfdom". In this environment, the "serf" (consumer) never actually controls, or owns, what they continually pay for. But, rather, an all powerful (perpetual) "property-owner" can change, alter, exact additional payment for... or, simply deny... continued access to such a "property". This is exactly the goal, and danger, of such "subscription" based "content" services.<br /><br />The difference is, absolutely, key to the very concept of true "individual property-ownership rights".<br /><br />If you -OWN- it, you can use it now, or twenty years from now. You can use it as often, or as little, as you wish. When you no longer want it, you can sell it. All of these rights (and, abilities) completely disappear under a "subscription" ( and/or "DRM") model. Further, these rights, and abilities, are exactly what has already been shown to be completely eliminated, by such an "IP rental/control" mentality.<br /><br />Try to legally sell an "iTunes" song, you dont want anymore. Or, try to play a song that you have paid for... if its DRM-license has been revoked, or cant be re-authenticated. Or, try and listen to your favorite band... if they are no longer carried by your, particular, "subscription" service.<br /><br />In this case...<br /><br />...if a company goes out of business, you lose the music you have been paying for. ...if a company decides to discontinue access (or methodology of distribution), you lose the music you have been paying for. ...if a company decides to sell, or discontinue, any particular "content", you lose the music you have been paying for. Or, if a company decides to demand additional payment, you do what ever they say, or, you lose the music you have been paying for. And, the simple fact is that, you will probably end-up paying more for what you actually use, than if you simply -bought- it (unencumbered).<br /><br />Frankly, all of these ("subscription/DRM") problems (which certain industries are actually trying to force upon "consumers"), would simply never exist if people understood, and refused to accept the (perpetual-payment, no ownership, complete loss of control, and freedom) model of "content access", that the media industries are trying to shove down our throats.

[dogmo1001]

good enough idea -- bad implementation

I love my subscription streaming service. But when I bought a Plays-for-Sure album from their store (Yahoo/Musicmatch) it was less than 6 months before the Plays-for-Sure permissions to about half the songs had just up and disappeared. Money for nothing. From here on out, it's strictly subscription or Amazon-type DRM-free Mp3s.

[iBuzz]

Agree... PlaysForSure was a terrible implementation

I agree completely!<br /><br />Even for subscription services, PlaysForSure was just terribly implemented by <br />Microsoft. When "Janis"/PlaysForSure subscription services came out, I <br />signed up. At first, it was nothing but pain. I kept having DRM license store <br />corruption issues within Windows Media Player. The solution was typically to <br />delete my license store and rebuild it, which meant having to acquire the <br />licenses for about 4000 tracks. It was a process that took all day! <br />Sometimes that wouldn't work and I would forced to re-download all 4000 <br />tracks!<br /><br />Then, when I signed up for the ToGo service that allowed me to transfer the <br />tracks to my portable, the transfer took FOREVER! I discovered later that it <br />was due to a bad design on Microsoft's part in the way they chained licenses. <br />Turned out, the more tracks you added, the more time it took to download a <br />license and transfer the track (seems like they used an O(n^2) algorithm that <br />didn't scale very well). Makes you wonder if they had a Freshman Summer <br />intern designing the system.<br /><br />Microsoft finally realized their design mistake and issued a patch for <br />Windows Media Player. However, after installing the patch, I had to re-<br />license all 4000 tracks, delete them off my player and reformat it, and then <br />re-transfer all the tracks.<br /><br />I thought all my troubles were behind me until one day I plugged in my Rio <br />Carbon for it's monthly sync-to-tell-it-you're-still-subscribed connection <br />with my computer. And suddenly, none of my music would play! It turns out <br />that someone in Redmond accidentally deleted the device license for the Rio <br />Carbon off the DRM servers and just like that, Rio Carbons all across the <br />country could no longer play subscription music!<br /><br />And they couldn't put the device license back! Turns out that with Windows <br />Media Player 10, once a license for a device was revoked, it was revoked <br />forever on your computer unless you reinstalled Windows or installed the at-<br />the-time Windows Media Player 11 beta. And once I installed the beta, I <br />started having problems with downloading new content from my <br />subscription service, which obviously hadn't tested with the new WMP beta <br />software.<br /><br />Not only that, but there were a few times, where I took my player on a trip, <br />under the belief that I had recently synced to my computer, but during the <br />trip, the player refused to play any of the subscription tracks because it said <br />the license had expired! So, for a week I was without any music until I could <br />get back home to sync it up. For people who are supposed to be so smart, <br />why would you design something this way? Can't you at least give someone <br />a 30 day grace period from the time you detect that the license has expired <br />(and not from the time that you think the license actually expired)? And <br />what's this nonsense of having to connect it to a computer once a month to <br />verify a subscription. Once I fill an MP3 with music, I rarely connect it back <br />up. You think they would have provided some other way, like going to a web <br />site with your account (e.g., through my cell phone) to get a code to enter <br />into my MP3 player.<br /><br />Finally, I discovered that there was about a 3-4 second gap between tracks <br />whenever I played these subscription tracks on my MP3 player. I read <br />somewhere that it was blamed on requiring a lot of CPU power to verify a <br />license and that license verification was being done before playing each <br />track. Skipping through subscription track playlists also took forever.<br /><br />So, I completely agree. For me, the idea of a music subscription service is <br />great, it's just that Microsoft completely dropped the ball with a shoddy <br />design and implementation of its PlaysForSure service.<br /><br />And also, why doesn't PlaysForSure work on Macs or Linux or on game <br />consoles? If you want to create a universal subscription solution, it needs to <br />be platform independent. And now they are re-labeling it to be "Certified <br />For Windows Vista?" Who wants to require that Windows Vista needs to be in <br />the picture whenever they want to listen to their music. Are you kidding me?<br />!!!

[streamOG]

PlaysForSure is Dead but DRM isn't

the name served it's purposed and has been migrated into the Vista branding. That's all. Microsoft is not continuing development of the WMRM platform and in fact have enhanced it with the PlayReady offering for SilverLight.<br /><br />Interestingly enough Adobe has also gotten on board with the Flash RMS platform for Flash video and audio coming out in January.

[techforumz]

vorbis everyone

we should just make players that ONLY support ogg, mp3, wav, and flac. That way no DRM is possible. Or maybe only unprotected wma, aac, etc...

[gsmiller88]

Microsoft has ADHD...

One minute they're pumping billions into MSN to best Google and Yahoo, but then they give MSN the ax and change it to Windows Live and confuse the average user. Then <br />they go on to partner with MTV to battle iTunes, but that falls throw in no time. All the while Microsoft's core businesses are being bested by their competition because <br />Microsoft has neglected them. THIS is why I will not buy a Microsoft product, I know it's only a matter of time before they no longer support it and have moved onto another <br />half baked scheme and I'm left out in the cold.

[The_Decider]

Another MS failure

Everything outside their core business fails. And their core isn't too healthy either, but is at least still standing.<br /><br />When is MS going to learn that it doesn't need to compete against Apple's non-OS products, Google, etc?<br /><br />They are just spinning their wheels playing 'me-too'.

[bigjim01]

Plays for Sure

I think that the original idea was a perfect idea, and Microsoft should have made the Zune a part of that program rather than copy a perfectly bad idea that Apple had (of course that is all that Apple has, bad ideas). Microsoft should have stayed the course with the MSN Music and the plays for sure. They could have made the Zune work with what they already had in place.

[cxar71]

yea, right...

I don't work for M$, I don't especially like it either, but you don't have to be a sound engineer to know that burning down to a CD your mp3s, ripping the CD, and re-encoding the music into mp3s will only get you a bunch of low LOW LOW quality crappy pieces of music. That's exactly what being locked-in is about. You just told a man handcuffed to his own bad that a viable way to escape is sawing his own hand off. =)

[BenzTech]

What's wrong with renting music?

When I make my $1000 rent payment on my loft at the end of the month I don't think twice about the fact that if I move out in a year I will no longer have access to my old apartment...<br /><br />I don't know an iPod because they don't offer a subscription service.<br /><br />I currently have over 700 subscription based albums on my hard drive and player. At $15 an album, that's over $10,000 worth of music. And at $15 a month for my fee, that's almost 60 YEARS worth of subscriptions. Not to mention I'm increasing my library by 2-3 albums per month, further increasing my exposure to new music.<br /><br />If I go 60 years without ever owning my own home, I certainly won't complain about all the money I spent on the amazing places I got to live in when I had them...