Slashdot Mirror
MS Putting the Squeeze on Alternative Audio
renard writes: "Some interesting developments during the last two days of the Microsoft antitrust trial, as reported by AP: MS Executive Linda Averett has admitted that Internet Explorer trumps user preferences for audio playback, and explains away a failure of IE6 searches to find RealAudio sites as a "mistake by the search team." My personal favorite: an MS-internal email exchange where one employee suggests that everyone "Remember the 'embrace and extend' campaigns we've used in the past," and an MS executive admonishes that "We need to keep all of this off the airwaves." See also related stories at Yahoo, CNN, and the NYT."
This really isn't much worse than the hoops that RealPlayer makes you go through to remove it as your default media player. After about 4 "Are you really, really, really sure you want to Disalbe StartCenter" messages it lets you. Besides - they make you upgrade about once a month so that all your preferences get reset to RealPlayer again anyway... I don't know who would actually PAY for their crappy product.
That wouldn't bother me overly much; I don't plan to need to use it. I'm more worried about not being able to leave the browser for anything.
I've been reading this for months... and you know it still seems like of all the things you could do to punish microsoft or increase competitiveness, this has to be one of the most trivial.
Ignore the propriatary file formats, ignore the "microsoft tax" contracts, ignore the insane EULA's, Ignore the nasty anti-OpenSource traps in their code releases, (your prof in CSI 101 saw our code so your open source project 5 years later violates our IP...) Ignore all the other dirty tricks they are playing and make them take out the ability to download files, or listen to music out of the box??? what the HECK! The whole organization must be stifling giggles and telling the lawyers to fight it out just so the court doesn't realize how easy athey are getting off.
More to the point, the problem was presented, and they seem to think that fixing it makes everything better.
"You can't punish me for that, I stopped doing it when I got caught!" Bah.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
The quote in the story is a little misleading. Here is the full quote:
The Microsoft executive is stating that the discussion of what they are doing and why needs to be kept off the email "airwaves." In my mind, this is actually more damning, because it intimates that he knows what they are doing could get them in trouble.
...and go use something else. This is the kind of thing that drives me a bit insane, since this fuels the fire of people thinking that using Microsoft products is the only way of using a computer. "I can't use this because Microsoft won't let me....wahhhhh...." There are other products out there. Don't like Internet Explorer? Go use Opera. Don't like MS Office, go use OpenOffice. Don't like Windows? Go use Linux or Mac OSX, or FreeBSD, or etc...
If enough people start using other products, perhaps Microsoft will take notice and start building things that people actually want. It's called market tendencies folks...not exactly rocket science.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Well, the govt. used to care, and used to want to bring anti-trust charges against Microsoft, but then, Microsoft used to not donate money to any political party.
It's interesting to see how both policies changed around the same time.
That's silly. The problem does not constitute evidence that must be preserved. If the states have documented the issue properly, that should be all the evidence necessary.
If MS were defending themselves from a "Your software is crappy and insecure" suit, I don't think anyone would be arguing that they shouldn't be able to try to fix any bugs or holes until after the trial was over.
Besides, I suspect that testifying that the problem was resolved qualifies as an admission that a problem existed. No need to prove something that both parties agree to.
If ie is monitorring what you do on something as trivial as a type of music format then that means that it "is" monitoring you. Now they have more of a liability in general. I know it is far fetched but ms only defence when their products are being used for kiddie porn or to cicumvent national security is that they dont monitor what goes thru ie. Now they cant use this defence because they "are" monitoring ie they have already removed thier own "moral" objections to monitoring their customers.
The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this lousy T-shirt
*shock* *gasp* *amazement* MS used underhanded tactics that were exposed in the trial and/or corporate emails. I feel like we're caught in a timewarp.
I wish once and for all that the general public and the US Court would realise that this is just another day at MS, and that we likely won't see the end of this type of MS BS til they actually implement either a breakup, or some other REAL sanctions.
If they won't play nicely with the other children, take away their toys. That's what parents do with spoiled children (at least they did when i was growing up).
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
I've been using Internet Explorer 6 for over six months now, since I got a computer that was pre-loaded with Windows XP last year. Whenever I click on a link to an MP3, AVI, or other media file, I always get a dialog box saying "Would you like to play this in Internet Explorer?" I always check "Never ask me again," and click "No." However, for some reason, I keep getting asked this very same question every time!
I haven't tried it, but IE must only stop asking if you finally say "Yes."
For more information, click here.
The one crippling characteristic of OSS is that there are few (if any) standards. When there are few standards, and everybody is using something different.
That in itself isn't a bad thing, but if the OSS community wants to overthrow M$, or at the very least claim market (user) share, standards have to be established so that there is one clear and very public alternative to the latest M$ offering.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
This just emphasizes how hard Open Source companies like Linux and RealMedia are going to have to work to overcome the scourge that is Micro$oft. We have made great strides, and Linux and BSD combined now account for a full 1% of home computers (including OS X and discounting dual booting and versions of Windows pre-2k). These are numbers to be proud of, but still M$ treats the "Hacker" (not a bad term!) community as an insignificant force.
If you ask me, it's dirty tricks like these, trying to make their own proprietary mp3 format the standard, that indicate that they are actually afraid of Linux and Open Source. We have them on the run, now let's go in for the kill.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I actually prefer MS's player over all the others... ESPECIALLY Real player. Its nearly the only one left that doesn't carry add-on spyware. At least you can disable the tracking on WMP. Most of the others take over the system and try to take control of every media type out there and carry pop-up banners and other crap I don't want to deal with.
.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
Don't get me wrong. If I had to pick between Real, QT, and Windows Media, I'd take Windows Media.
;^P
Why? If you object to MS, why give in to their products so easily?
QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it. Real runs hidden applications when Windows loads and only recently stopped its practice of asking me if I want to upgrade.
That's the price you pay if you want to steer clear of MS (at least for now.) As long as none of these things are doing harmful activities on your machine, I can't see what the big deal is. Yeah, they nag you. So does your mother.
It any case, QT is what, $30? That's not bad especially when you look at all the extras you get when you pay. Oh, but the incessant cries of outrage follow those kinds of statements.
BUT I WANT IT FREEEEEEEEEE AND IT HAS TO BE CONVEEEEENIENT AND MICROSOFT IS FREEEEEEEEEE AND CONVEEEEENIENT!!!!
MS is like the local drug dealer... gives you the good stuff quick, but just enough to get your addicted. Eventually you'll be paying the big bucks for it and you'll notice the damage only when it's too late. So, pay the piddly-ass $30 of whatever for another media player and get over it. You'll be paying eventually... one way or the other. You may as well ensure that your cash goes to support someone/something who is tolerable.
Besides that, there are known tricks for getting around some of those problems, not all of them illegal either.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Im not so sure. I think CKK will unleash a nice, hefty blow towards microsoft. I think shes trying to avoid the impression of biasedness that Judge Jackson clearly showed, at all cost by giving Microsoft every opportunity to present themselves in the right light. This will even raise the impression that shes pro-Microsoft or doesnt really listen to the states. :" Ok, even if we were a Monopoly, were such an important one and already got too far so that ripping us apart now would turn America and the world into the lower levels of hell." Miss CKK could still, and i believe she will, turn into Mr. Gates personal purgatory. Wait and see !
And forget how Gates acted. The mere fact that he didnt explode like everybody exptected doesnt turn him into a favour for MS. Basically what he said was : "It is bad for Microsoft if the settlement goes through.". Well, this is what this whole thing is about. You could go even further and translate what he said into
Amen to that.
That's one 'feature' that i'd love to see beat into the ground. Just about every product that has competitors (as most do) include those stupid @*()#&@( popups to reassociate them with format x. If i wanted program y associated with format x, i woulda left it checked when i installed the bloody thing.
At least most have the option to never show this again... realplayer is just a complete bitch for this, which is why i don't use it. ever. i'm also quickly getting fed up with quicktime's 'UPGRADE TO QUICKTIME PRO', adobe's "THERES MORE TO ACROBAT THAN JUST READER!", and winamp's "VERSION XXX IS NOW OUT! DOWNLOAD?".
but what pisses me off the most is no matter how often you uncheck or say no to all these things, they somehow get mysteriously 'reset' every few weeks.
And is it just me, or are those 'never show this message again' buttons getting fewer and fewer? nowadays they're buried somewhere in the nether regions of the user preferences section, with ever more obscure wording.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
The tone of the trial seemed to change around the time that we elected a Texas oilman as our president.
-B
Sure, some of Microsoft's competitors are using this as a way to harm Microsoft. This is the first time Microsoft has been even slightly vulnerable since Windows 95 has been released. Sorry, but I don't buy the whole "oh, they couldn't make it in the marketplace" argument. Admittedly, some companies that have complained about Microsoft may have failed eventually - but Oracle and Sun are not amongst them.
If you're one of those idiots who think there should be no rules in business then let's take that to the logical conclusion. If someone gets in my way in business, I have every right to have a guy named Vinnie show up on their doorstep and put a moon roof in their skull. If you don't like that option, then get real and admit that business is legislated and Microsoft has broken a quite a few rules in doing business. I'd be happy to play it either way, though.
The court has already decided that Microsoft broke the law - now is the time to decide what the just punishment is and what will prevent future abuses. It is fully acceptible that the punishment should harm Microsoft's business and benefit their competitors - it is the level of harm that needs to be decided.
When a person is convicted of a crime - as Microsoft has been - the court has a responsibility to mete out punishment that will deter the criminal from doing so again, protect society from that criminal and set an example for anyone else who might consider breaking the law. Therefore Microsoft should receive a punishment that is stiff enough to make Bill and company think twice before abusing their position, protect their competitors and the public to a reasonable extent and make it unattractive for other companies that hold monopolies now or in the future to follow Microsoft's example.
I know this is a troll, but I am in a arguing sort of mood.
The States came after Microsoft because they had dollar signs in their eyes.
Nothing more, nothing less. They just wanted a piece of the pie.
What, so you think that the states will see any settlement money? Did you think that Bill G was going to show up with a huge novelty check with the memo "Sorry for fucking you over"??
I don't know about the other states, but Utah joined as a result of the ongoing litigation with Caldera over DR-DOS. Many of the experts in the case are at the University Of Utah, and after reviewing the facts in the case, they all advised the then attorney general to join the case.
If nothing else, it was an effort to punish Microsoft, and maybe drum up a little more support for the hometown heros Caldera and Novell.
Not to mention, being ruled a monopoly is a surefire way to ensure every con artist and halfwit who can't make it in the market on their own will slither out of the woodwork and make bogus claims against you.
Right - you know I really hate it when I have to go out and pick a telephone provider, or gas station, or what kind of car to drive. Wouldn't it just have been easier if we all drove Ford cars filled with Standard Oil gas while talking on our AT&T phones?
Maybe because if we had let those monopolies stand, AT&T would be charging you $2.00 a minute instead of 15 cents, Ford cars would breaking down ever 10,000 miles forcing you to buy a new one, and gasoline would be at 10 bucks a gallon.
Yeah, these anti-trust laws really suck.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
These companies aren't seeking damages. They're seeking revenge. Plain and simple.
What, you think AOL bought Netscape because it was a good browser? Man, I want to know who your dealer is. That must be some prime smack he's selling you.
They bought Netscape for the right to sue Microsoft. A nice card in their hand, if you ask me.
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
No...that's not what changed.
There were two things that changed the government's position towards microsoft...the views of the content industry and the views of Computer makers (Dell, Gateway etc).
The content industry realizes that it is unlikely that they'll be able to force hardware to include DRM (not that Fritzie will stop trying). However, they don't need that as long as MS controls 95% of the desktop OS market. If they can get DRM onto 95% of desktops, they'll be happy. If MS's monopoly position weakens, then consumers might start to look for an OS without a DRM solution.
The PC makers used to want MS punished. They were sick of MS's overly-restrictive OEM license agreements. But then the bottom dropped out of the PC market. People didn't feel the need to upgrade their computers since they could run everything they needed to on their current setups. There was no killer app driving people to upgrade their computers. This is where XP's bloat starts to work in its favor. XP, to PC makers, is the killer app that will drive people to upgrade.
So, when Intel, AMD, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, the RIAA and MPAA call their favorite senators and tell them that they'd like Microsoft to get a slap on the wrist, the government complies.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Remember this is Joe Blow User you're talking about. Of course he's not going to look more closely at the installation options next time, he will just bitch at his computer-literate friend that his "music stuff" isn't working, (acting as if it's inherently his friend's fault since, if he knows all about computers, how could he let this atrocity happen?) until said friend fixes it for him, and Joe Blow will promptly forget what was done and how (if he even payed attention in the first place) so that he can repeat the mistake verbatim the next time he installs a program. And the poor computer literate friend finds himself increasingly distancing himself from his Joe Blow User friends in an attempt to escape the strange phenomenon that whenever a semi-intelligent mammal gets near a computer he/she becomes a complete moron capable of no logical reasoning whatsoever.
sigh...
Are these DLLs part of the OS or are they part of IE? I mean, I think that is the whole issue here. Isn't it? Microsoft has made it's web browser an integral part of the OS. In other words, if I choose to remove an application (namely MSIE) from my system, it really shouldn't remove part of the core OS along with it. For example, if I want to change the windshield wiper blades on my car, I would be very upset if the distributor cap was connected to the wipers in such a way that if I remove the wiper blades, I also remove the distributor cap. Wouldn't you be?
Some are given suckers and some get lollipops