To all those who wanted DRM questions: previous interviews imply that his answer would basically be the same as the answer to the last question in the interview (about net neutrality). You have to balance things that suck for one party (like letting network companies screw over content providers that don't play ball, or in the DRM case supplying restricted content that consumers hate) with things that suck for the other party (like scaring off content providers, be it because they risk getting screwed by the networks, or because they risk having non-protected content stolen).
IMHO, the argument for legislating net neutrality is actually weaker than the argument against DRM. Why? DRM hurts without helping: it *will* be broken, but will always inconvenience legitimate consumers. Non-neutral networks will probably, as Gates implies, be bigger/faster networks -- if I have to choose between more expensive IPTV that works, and cheaper IPTV that doesn't, I'd go with the functional one.
The X-Fi3 keeps with the company's commitment to audio fidelity, thanks to the apt-X codec, which supposedly offers audio quality similar to a wired connection when streaming. On that front, the device also handles FLAC files.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
To all those who wanted DRM questions: previous interviews imply that his answer would basically be the same as the answer to the last question in the interview (about net neutrality). You have to balance things that suck for one party (like letting network companies screw over content providers that don't play ball, or in the DRM case supplying restricted content that consumers hate) with things that suck for the other party (like scaring off content providers, be it because they risk getting screwed by the networks, or because they risk having non-protected content stolen).
IMHO, the argument for legislating net neutrality is actually weaker than the argument against DRM. Why? DRM hurts without helping: it *will* be broken, but will always inconvenience legitimate consumers. Non-neutral networks will probably, as Gates implies, be bigger/faster networks -- if I have to choose between more expensive IPTV that works, and cheaper IPTV that doesn't, I'd go with the functional one.