Slashdot Mirror
EU Expands Microsoft Inquiry
Space cowboy writes "The European Commission is expanding its investigation into whether Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive practices - now it's not just the browser bundling, but also bundling of audio-visual components (such as Windows Media Player). " There's also a Reuters report - what is worth noting, tho', is that the basis for this investigation is in the market for small servers - *not* the desktop market, from what I can see/read.
'
The EU's focus on Microsoft's entry into the small server maket seems like it will have the effect of causing the case to recieve solid corporate support within Europe, sich that the EU will have to pursue the issue to fruition, rather than in the US where focus on the case focusing on the desktop market has recieved more fragmented consumer support. Let this be a lesson to the DOJ. When going after big companies, always identify the customer base most likely to support you in a unified way, and try the case with that focus. Granted this doesn't say much for the justice system, but that's how the world works... sadly...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Will we end up with four mini Microsofts ?
Might have implications for Samba, especially the authentication twist using unused fields they stuck in (was it Win2000?).
.net in it's tracks - .net must be seen as monopoly if you can only use Microsoft's servers and clients.....
This sort of EU stuff might also stop
When I were your age, all round here were fields...
your understanding that with the inclusion of media player windows are NOT keeping real player off the desk top i believe to be mistaken.
when corporates do roll outs of XP - do you think they are going to bother rolling out real as well? why should they?
when my mother buys her new machine and gets XP OEM, do you think she knows what real player is? of course not! she clicks on things to play movies and they work. (yes its a nice integrated approach as someone else pointed out and you have to congratulate microsoft for catering for my mother!)
anyway...
do you think real really cares about real player? how many people actually have the real player plus - the one you BUY? they only care about their SERVERS and SERVICES. the software that compresses the movies, the software that streams the casts.
now if i'm a web media streaming company and i have to decide to go MS or REAL - who do you think i'm going to go with? the server that has a player on just about EVERY desktop, or the server that my listeners have to download the player? that's not a difficult decision!
Today is Aug 30.
Two months is Oct 30.
XP ships Oct 27.
Just a tad late to help any injunction case against the company.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Let's see, here's the total of add-ons you get from Microsoft: 2 - IE and Media Player. Alright then, now lets look at a simple download of Netscape Communicator produced by AOL: The reason this download is somewhat big is because if you try to get it, you get not only Netscape, but WinAmp (another AOL product), RealPlayer, AOL Instant Messenger (what if I don't want to use AOL's shitty software?), and oh yeah, don't forget the AOL icons that go EVERYWHERE when you install any AOL product. Doesn't that piss anyone off in the least? I don't use Netscape at all as my browser because I think it sucks, and especially since AOL bought it out. I have to use Netscape calendar for work, and when I downloaded the Communicator with Calendar, I was able to tell it not to install Communicator, Winamp, and RealPlayer, but there was no check box for AOL Instant Messenger (which I can't use at work), and all of a sudden, bam, there it is on my computer! That and a nice fat "Sign up for AOL Today!" icon on my desktop. Why would I sign up for a crappy service like that? AOL should be the ones getting looked at for anti-competative nature if your going after these things like Media Player from Microsoft...
You wasted packets to get this lousy sig.
In short, Microsoft doesn't NEED to give a damn about the verdict. 10% of what they earn in Europe is probably less than the day-to-day changes in their share price value.
All in all, this is a show-trial (the EU wants to go "free/open" and this is a great excuse for a public flogging to justify it), but where Microsoft is probably more than happy to provide the show.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Maybe if Real Player wasn't an obtrusive, annoying piece of Spyware, it would be installed on more desktops.
I refuse to install it, for several reasons.
1. It's intrusive - you have to enter your email address, postal code, etc.
2. It slows your system down with all the crap it loads (ie StartCenter)
3. It crashes constantly. And when StartCenter is enabled, it causes the system to crash constantly. I don't know how many times I've had people in the office complain about their computers crashing all the time, which I remedied by removing StartCenter.
Instead of whining about MS' bundling practices, perhaps Real should work on improving their product, and removing some of the Spyware components from it.
After all, I don't use Windows Media Player for MP3s. Winamp does that quite nicely.
Has anyone put the bootloader situation forward as an example of Microsoft abusing its monopoly situation? This is the situation where Microsoft can DEMAND that OEM's put Windows and only Windows on PC's. Microsoft explicitly forbids them from dual-booting... allegedly. This point has been raised recently with regards to the BeOS case. The problem is that there is little evidence because the licenses between Microsoft and the OEM's are secret. This is the real scandal, not the browser, media player issue.
return 0; }
I think you'd have an argument if AOL were in the position that Microsoft is. That is to say, if AOL were a required part of practically every x86 PC sold in the world. As it is, however, you have to choose to download Netscape and AOL; they're not foisted upon you like IE and WMP and MSN Messenger will be in, for example, Windows XP.
Remember that the company that has the monopoly may be required to play by different rules than the companies against which they may compete. Since the US justice system has ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly and that they've engaged in monopoly maintenance, they may be required to act differently than AOL/TWC/Netscape or Sun or anyone else that challenges Microsoft.
Incidentally, I installed Netscape 6 on a Windows 2000 box and was able to uninstall (e.g.) Net2Phone, which is some piece of crap I don't need. I'm not sure whether I had the option to not install it in the first place (which, admittedly, would be bad) but I was able to uninstall it using the Add/Remove Programs control panel program. In Windows 9x, you don't have a choice about uninstalling IE at all. (Unless you use the non-Microsoft program Win98Lite or whatever it's called.)
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
You make good points, and I agree with all of them.
Now how should this problem be addressed. The way people use computers has evolved to the point where a computer should come with a media player, and that media player should handle things like streaming audio and video. People buying a computer should be able to assume that that feature will be included, and people writing software and developing web based applications should be able to assume that user's computers will be able to perform those opperations. If would be nice if the industry could have standardized on one media format, but that didn't happen. For streaming video there are three that I can think of, Real, Quicktime, Windows.
Should Microsoft be forced to include other media players? If so, whose? Do they have to accept all of them, since any who are left out are at a distinct disadvantage? At what point do you end up with confusing clutter that does consumers more harm than good?
In my opinion Windows should ship with exactly one media player. Not zero, and not more than one. If you want to have a more competitive market, then make Microsoft use an open format for their media player. That way other companies can compete on playback features, but consumers are still guarenteed to have a tool to play the media content.
Yes, I realize that this leaves Real in a very bad spot. The playback of streaming media is an obvious need for modern computing. They have gone down the path of providing this through a propriatary format, which they aren't willing to license to other manufactures in a way that would make it an industry standard. They put themselves in the place they are in. The governments of this world shouldn't step in and protect their business model. If their business model can't adapt to the market, then they go out of business. This isn't Microsoft manipulating the market to destory Real. This is the market heading in a logical direction, and Real can't adjust to it because they put themselves in this spot. Good bye Real, you enabled us to watch video when that market was in it's infantcy, it's a shame you didn't come up with a sustainable businees model.
The problem with WMP isn't multimedia playback, but the forced inclusion of Microsoft's own media licensing scheme. Thanks to WMP, they will be able to control what media you may download and when and if you are "allowed" to play it.
Yes, Real is trying to do exactly the same thing with their software. Just wanted to remind everyone that it's not just software for media playback, but also for media licensing control.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music