Yeah, that title sounds a bit harsh. But though the apparent truth isn't so severe, you can see it coming.

It's not really any secret that Microsoft has given support to HD-DVD - they even plan a HD-DVD drive for the Xbox 360. But today, Microsoft took a huge step - they killed next-gen playback on 32-bit Vista.

Now at first, the 'studios begged for it' argument makes sense. Yeah, the 64-bit kernel is much more secure. Yes, the studios are always asking for protection mechanisms. Yes, this doesn't affect a huge number of current users.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a little more going on here. Microsoft didn't support HD-DVD until well in the game, and there seems to be a large number of suicidal moves that don't exactly push HD-DVD anywhere but off a cliff.

Take the Xbox 360. In theory, it could have shipped with a HD-DVD drive. In theory, they could make it an addon early in the game. But by dragging their feet, Microsoft gets users to clamor for a quicker path. Enter Urge/Xbox Live Marketplace/etc. It would appear to be a smooth move for Microsoft to add video downloads and streaming, and it would start out with a huge installed base. Microsoft is all about DRM, but they want WM DRM. He who controls the DRM that wins makes the most money on hardware licenses.

Today's move, however, takes the cake. It's a thinly-veiled push for 64-bit Windows. Ever since Microsoft offered a program to swap a Windows XP Pro 32-bit license for a Windows XP 64-bit license, you can see how seriously they want this. It allows them to drop all the old kernel compatibility hacks - the article itself admits the application compatibility is not as important a concern on 64-bit Vista as it is on 32-bit. This argument - that Vista 64-bit need not be nearly as concerned with application compatibility - leaves a hole for Microsoft to exploit - code-signing, specifically signed drivers.

Let's ignore the fact that Vista 32-bit is better for old devices without unsigned drivers, cutting edge devices with very new or beta drivers, and older software. On a side note, I wonder if virtualization solutions will ever work on Vista 64-bit.

The 'signed drivers' requirement, however, does not benefit the consumer. On XP32, it simply adds a few more clicks. On Vista 64bit, you can't use a driver unless it is signed. Again, sounds like consumer protection, but it's not. A code-signing certificate costs at least $500, and requires submission of a form. While it is purchased from VeriSign, I would be shocked if Microsoft doesn't get a significant kickback.

Microsoft wants to control the technology. They have the classic Slashdot fiscal plan:

1. License out media and info distribution systems and protection technologies.
2. ???
3. PROFIT!!!

And this entire issue ignores the erosion of fair-use rights, which may emerge briefly as promises when a DRM technology appears to compete, but will then disappear when the threat is gone.