Moreover, the iPod most likely would have never been invented. How about that for killing innovation?
I don't think it's DRM itself killing innovation but the overuse of the actual "control over software and hardware providers".
What makes products like the iPod or Netflix successful, despite their use of DRMs, is their simplicity and accessibility among other things. Netflix is trying hard to negotiate for more content, but I think content providers are killing innovation mainly by not allowing initiatives like Netflix to have all the content in one place. We need a Spotify (i.e. most of the content available) for movies...
Edit: elaborating...
If you don't recall PalmOS, the major user interface was a resistive touch screen (160x160 mono ranging up to 320x320 16K color) and a stylus, with no keyboard on most models. The keyboard lack was countered by a handwriting recognition system that took a very low-CPU power approach: Graffiti has its own gesture alphabet, which takes an hour or two to learn. By specifying the way every letter had to be drawn, and specifying where on the screen it would be recognized, a Motorola 68K was acceptable, and a 300MHz low-end ARM felt snappy.
PalmOS had a database format which lives on to this day as part of the Mobi ebook file spec.
It may have taken a bit longer, but I think the mainstream popularity of smartphones was inevitable.
I don't. I'm not a fan of Apple, but they really transformed our conception of a smartphone and made them a desirable device for the mass market. As I'm sure you know, early versions of Android looked nothing like it did once the iPhone was revealed. Even relatively modern smartphone platforms like WebOS completely failed to resonate with the public.
Sure, none of them are made by the mainstream brands that the entertainment industry has a hold over, but that was the same for MP3 players before Apple made its move. (And a bold move it was, because everybody knew the only thin iPods were being used for is to play "illegally" obtained content.)
Also, DRM is merely a weapon. Copyright is the killer.
DRM allows rights holders to create and "monetize" new "rights" outside the legislative process. Copyright law (in the United States, at least) allows for "fair use", but the DMCA criminalization of "circumvention devices" creates a method to eliminate fair use rights via technology. Once DRM is legally protected rights holders can go wild using DRM to, effectively, make up new laws.
A work with DRM attached can't be Copyrighted. Copyright is a bargain between the demos and the creators of artistic works. In that bargain the creators get protection from the state for their monopolistic exploitation of a work on the proviso that the work then enters the public domain after a "limited" time.
Now distribution companies and purchasers of copyrights and employers of copyright creators have managed to erode the limitation of that period to a great extent but the limitation still holds. Ergo, works must enter the Public Domain when the term expires.
Works with DRM can not [properly] do this. Not in any way as might analogise that imagined by those creating copyright laws initially. The work must be free to be used in any way the public sees fit (except perhaps those that contravene moral rights, I'd personally extend some moral rights in perpetuity - eg right to be acknowledged as creator of a work).
Copyright law should punish those that forcibly rest fair use (or fair dealing as we get in the UK) from the public and no protection should be offered by the state for works that can't be guaranteed to enter the public domain (eg by deposition of non-DRM in an archive to which the rights holder that chooses DRM pays a fee for maintenance).
Copyright law is a deal that has been broken. Too much power has been ceded by politicians to the media conglomerates on the public's behalf and without proper warrant.
My iPhone can play any video encoded in the right formats using the Videos app. It can also run VLC. A wide variety of main stream BluRay players support DLNA and media via usb.
Copyright being a killer kind of overlooks why we have copyright to begin with. I make movie, I get some limited powers to determine who can and can not distribute my work and how it's used. If I make a movie, you don't have the right to make a buck off my work with out my say so. Do you have ANY idea why that's kind of inherently unfair?
Also, if I don't want my work used to sell cigarettes or used to stump for some political candidate, then that should be my right.
That's not to say copyright reform isn't needed, or that copyright holders don't have disproportional bipartisan political influence or any number of things. However, as a leading issue of our time, it's somewhere near, "Are there too many Buicks on the road?" Fixing or repealing the DMCA is relatively easy. There are many issues that I can think of that just aren't.
Panasonic Viera E5 can play .MKV files used very commonly by pirates.
Anyway, I recall that Sony had a brief attempt at CD DRM and it turned into a fiasco for them.