[pcwalton]

I agree with you. But Intel would have to convince skeptical Hollywood executives of that, who are more inclined to just not let PCs have new content at all, since relatively few people consume TV and movies on PCs to begin with.

Personally, I think the right solution is to not have DRM for music, TV, and movies on PCs, purely for business reasons. What's happening today is that Intel is effectively shipping everyone who buys an x86 CPU a content decryption module, burning goodwill among free software advocates even though fewer than 1% of consumers will ever use the functionality (actually, does anyone use it?) It makes more business sense for consumers to just buy set-top boxes to consume content. It's not like anyone who buys a $450 Core i7 is going to balk at paying $35 for a Chromecast.

[flukus]

> But Intel would have to convince skeptical Hollywood executives of that

Does hollywood have an leverage whatsoever on intel? If intel decided they were removing any and all DRM features hollywood would have no choice but to accept.

[pcwalton]

No, Hollywood would just not let Intel-based PCs have access to their content. This would lose them zero revenue. As I said, anyone who can afford a $450 Intel CPU can afford a $35 Chromecast.

Hollywood holds all the cards here.