Slashdot Mirror


AOL, Microsoft Squabble Over Control of Online Music

Section8 writes: "As if Microsoft wasn't pushing on so many other fronts already (see Part 1 and Part 2), now it seems that Microsoft is seeking to place itself in total control of what format we use on the Internet to view anything. This article in the Wall Street Journal gives some interesting facts about what Microsoft is trying to do out there. Great quote from AOL rep: "[it is] Microsoft's intention to gain as much control over music on the Internet as they have over operating systems on the computer desktop, and we couldn't accept that"." AOL's merger with Time-Warner has given them greater incentive to not use Microsoft's media format... There's also a report on the AOL/Microsoft talks published by AOL.

17 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my god! by NMerriam · · Score: 5

    now it seems that Microsoft is seeking to place itself in total control of what format we use on the Internet to view anything

    That's shocking! What, have they developed some sort of ultra-secret "explorer for the internet" application that can be used to view web pages?

    Is there some "media player for windows" that will be provided with every copy of their OSes?

    Nexy you'll tell me they have even built an "encoder" of some sort for this strange new audio technology.

    Its a good thing AOL has discovered this secret, nefarious plot and warned us all in advance!...

    ---------------------------------------------

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  2. Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    I just hope that Microsoft doesn't take control of the online porn industry, it's shady enough as is.

  3. leveraging a monopoly position by tim_maroney · · Score: 4
    Disabling RealPlayer in AOL would clearly not be in the interest of consumers. This demand was an attempt to use Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop OS market to restrict trade by suppressing a competitor, RealNetworks.

    Microsoft seems to have decided that it has nothing to fear from the court, and unfortunately it may be correct. However, I prefer to think that the court of appeals hinted that it would not break up the company in order to see how Microsoft behaved once the pressure was off, and that they are taking careful note of the fact that the company is continuing to engage in plainly anticompetitive practices based on its monopoly power.

    Tim

  4. Will this help the consumer any? by penguinboy · · Score: 4

    So AOL/Time Warner doesn't want Microsoft to control internet media. Probably all we're like to see come out of this is another proprietary format that's designed to limit the consumer's rights and focus on making money for AOL/Time Warner.

  5. In other news... by small_dick · · Score: 5

    ...AOL Time Warner has announced an alliance with Red Hat Linux to bundle the Real Audio streaming content software on a bootable CD to its 16 million customers...

    (and then I woke up)


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.

    --


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
    See my user info for links.
  6. Good for Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5
    This is good for people who want to see websites that are actually written to standards because this means AOL are more likely now to use a Mozilla browser in the next release of their software, giving Mozilla a reasonable market share which will mean people will have to code their pages to web standards and we'll not have a Microsoft only web.

    BTW Netscape 6.1beta1 is now out and it's based on Mozilla 0.9.1 it's a MASSIVE improvement over Netscape 6.01 and 6.0 which were quite frankly a joke, therefore Netscape's not dead yet and if we can get AOL to support Netscape/Mozilla then there's a good future for the browser.

  7. New poll idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5
    How about this for a poll?

    Which of the following is most evil:

    • AOL
    • CIA
    • FBI
    • RIAA
    • SDMI
    • MPAA
    • ICANN
    • USDOJ
    • USPTO
    • AYBABTU
    • Microsoft
    • CowboyNeal

    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine! =P

  8. MP3 or OSS formats by r2ravens · · Score: 4

    As long as we all keep using MP3 (and it's not going to go away) or Open Source altervatives, this will be like two fleas fighting over the dog.

    I guess mindshare is everything... and MP3 has it. Sorry AOL/MS.

    I will, however, have to reassess the statement that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    How ironic that since we have a government not interested in enforcing anti-trust law, the major force for promoting competition in the sheep-consumer marketplace is the merged corporate monolith AOL/Time-Warner.

    What a world...

    --
    War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
    1. Re:MP3 or OSS formats by Tackhead · · Score: 5
      > I guess mindshare is everything... and MP3 has it. Sorry AOL/MS.

      That's the part that still scares me.

      If MS really wanted to take over the world, they'd do to MP3 what they did to AVI.

      That is, they'd use the same file extension to represent dozens of codecs, many of which were proprietary.

      Download an arbitrary .AVI and ask yourself what you really have. It's pretty tough. YUV? IV31, IV41, IV51? 2.63? MPEG4v2? MPEG4v3? DivX ;-)

      Attempt to play an AVI with even one byte screwed up in Windoze Media Player, and it says "Nope, I won't even show you the video up until the corrupt part." (Sometimes you can get around this with File->Properties->Preview in the 'doze explorer, which just shows how brain-dead WindozeMediaPlayer is).

      So WTF does this have to do with MP3? Plenty.

      People like to swap files that end in the .MP3 extension. All Bill has to do is pay Thompson enough money, and buy the right to stuff whatever crap he wants into a file ending in .MP3, and stuff whatever brains he wants into Windoze Media Player to say "Ah, the file ends in .MP3, but it's actually a WinMedia or RealVideo file. I'll decode it accordingly".

      On the encoding front, it'd be easy for him to do the same thing - MP3Pro (different codec, same file extension, albeit with some backwards compatibility) from Thompson is already doing this. Bill could make his "music recorder" tool record in a proprietary codec, but save the file with the .MP3 extension.

      Within a month, clueless luzers would flood the pool of MP3s with these Windoze-only files that happen to end in ".MP3", and we'd be in the .AVI situation - "Damn, this thing won't play, what the hell codec do I need today" all over again.

      With .AVI, it was inevitable, as we had CPU speeds going from 16 MHz to 1.6 GHz - a factor of 1000 - and similar growth in hard drive sizes. We really can do better video today that we couldn't have fantasized about when the first .AVI codecs were introduced.

      But music? No thanks. MP3 at 320 is indistinguishable (for me and anyone I know) from CD. For most folks, MP3 at 192 is "good enough". For anyone - by definition - a lossless compression of the original .WAV is "perfect". We already have most, if not all, of the technology we're ever likely to need when it comes to "How can I make this compressed bitstream sound like the 2-channel stereo recorded on this CD".

      All that's left is to screw it up by embedding it in various DRM schemes. I dunno about you, but I think I'll pass on that.

  9. Re:Enemy of my Enemy is my friend??? by Guppy06 · · Score: 5
    "It looks like for this issue with file formats, we should be supporting AOL, since the Real Player is available for Linux, unlike the Windows Media Player.. "

    I'm not a big fan of either one, personally. While both are nice for watching broadcast media like NASA TV, I don't like the way many sites use them as a "Thou shalt not download" tool on their media (it feels like a TV station trying to prevent me from using my VCR). Especially when they force me to download a proprietary player to view something they could have easily just encoded as an MPG.

    (Anybody else miss the days before the banner ad?)

    And as far as who I think we should support, I think we should support the idea of both of them mutually driving each other out of business. While Windows wants to make their own music encoding scheme the new standard, AOL/TW is also trying to fuck with on-line music through the RIAA.

    All in all, these two companies were in talks to try to divy up markets, deciding how we can and cannot access parts of the internet, while a new MP3 codec was released.

  10. Good for Netscape by linuxci · · Score: 5
    The breakdown in talks mean that AOL are probably gonna seriously consider using gecko rather than IE, and that's so good for Netscape and remember Netscape is the biggest contributor to Mozilla. Even if you like IE you have to agree it needs competition because otherwise Microsoft will have no incentive to improve it. This is indeed a great day for web standards, even though the breakdown in talks was about music.

    Try Netscape 6.1 PR 1, it's much better than the crappy Netscape 6.0 browser, if you've not tried it, give it a go and let them know what you think (select Help > Feedback Center), even if Mozilla based browsers get a 20% market share it should be enough to encourage webmasters to code to standards and write pages to work anywhere.

  11. Mod the parent post up. by FTL · · Score: 4
    The breakdown of talks between MS and AOL has given Mozilla a future outside of geekdom. Had the talks been successfull, the web would have been MS-only within two years.

    Let's not waste this opportunity.
    --

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
  12. RE: umm... it's not evil it's just business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    I know that windows users are mindless sheep who can not see the difference between an anti-competitive, innovation hampering, standards breaking company and a normal ma & pop shop but please stop with the 1950's McCarthism commie talk just because one of your friends told you that linux user's where communists :-)

    Using and/or developing open source software has nothing to do with communism, it has to do with co-operation and problem solving, computing is not like farming or fast food or some other regular business it is more like a science and a technology that is developing very quickly and is just as important to our evolution as say, modern medicine or energy generation

    i for one believe that people should work and co-operate together for the advancement of computing not hide there favorite new advances from other brilliant minds like one would hide their new cheese burger recipe.

    I do not believe that proprietary software is "immoral" or "wrong" however i do believe that people working together openly to develop new software technologies and sharing ideas and advancments is a great thing and is much more productive than the proprietary development model.

    While i do agree that computing is a great source of income and jobs in this world i also believe it is a great technology and it's continued advancment can not be trusted 100% to companies especially these days when most companies fight each other with lawsuits and illegal practices rather than better products and idea's.

    Not to mention that the Internet was developed with *our* tax dollars and depends 100% on open standards and protocols. Changing the formats of the internet to only work with your products is no different that changing a national interstate highway to only work with yoru model of car. that is exactly what microsoft is attempting to do. Also if you knew anything about the law you would know that using a monopoly to try and gain another monopoly is illegal.

    I do not appreciate being insulted, and called a communist, especially by a person who obvioulsy has no idea what they are talking about

  13. Re:here is an idea by Ig0r · · Score: 5

    As long as you write your own damn code you aren't 'forced' into using any license.

    --

    --
    Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
  14. Re:I don't see what the problem is -- I do by r2ravens · · Score: 5

    Naysayer checking in here...

    They are not using open standards to distribute the music, that's the whole point to the article.
    The content may be transmitted via TCP/IP, but they are encoding in their own media format (including DRM and being proprietary source just for starters) and trying to kill the Real format.

    MS will never do anything with .ogg, they can't apply Digital Rights Management to it to make the RIAA happy and they can't control it. ...Well maybe they could if they attempted to 'pollute' it like they did to Java. But why would they bother, they just use their desktop monopoly to force people to use their own Media Player formats by breaking the competitors product. "It ain't done 'til Lotus won't run."

    MS using open standards? I think not. They have subverted or attempted to subvert every single standard they have come near (Kerberos, smart tags, anybody?)

    One doesn't trust an addict until they have admitted that they have a problem, apologized/made amends *and* exhibited changed behavior. MS has made no steps whatsoever of this kind. They continue to thumb thier nose at government anti-trust action, lie, deceive and subvert to this very moment.

    ...endeavours outside software...

    Well, they don't have a monopoly on endeavours outside software, they are at least required to compete on the merits of the product.

    Kudos to Microsoft and shame on you if you revert to your proprietary tactics of yesteryear!

    ??? Huh? Revert? Yesteryear?

    Shame on them? Proprietary tactics? Yup. To this very day. That's what the whole problem is in the negotiations between them and AOL.

    And shame on AOL too. They're no angels. They demand proprietary solutions as well. They just don't have quite as large a monopoly to leverage.

    --
    War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
  15. our tax dollars? ummm Reality Check by Starrider · · Score: 4
    Not to mention that the Internet was developed with *our* tax dollars


    This is only true if you are talking about the old internet, the one used by the DoD and the defense industry. That baby was designed for national security and can withstand a nuclear strike. However, the modern internet, optical fiber based, was developed by the major telecommunications companies to increase voice traffic. Data traffic was originally secondary. I seriously doubt the companies like Cisco, Alcatel, and Lucent were using tax dollars to develop their products.


    and depends 100% on open standards and protocols


    Um, wrong again. Open standards don't really exist in networking or in telecommunications. Every vendor does things differently. The OSI model is NOT widely used and each vendor has its own implementation of what they want to do. Remember IPX? TCP/IP has finally taken over and dominated networking as Novell will now allow a server to run on solely TCP/IP.

    Lets get real people.

    ---
    We must find the Goldilocks zone.

  16. Mutual Legal Release? Please. Backstab me NOW! by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 5

    I'm surprised nobody else really commented on this. Read that line again in the article. Microsoft wanted AOL to sign a "Mutual Legal Release" which basically said they wouldn't take legal action against each other for the term of the contract.

    Would YOU sign an agreement like that with Micrsoft?