Slashdot Mirror
E.U. Commission: More Antitrust Trouble For MS
Tidal Flame writes "According to Wired news, Microsoft appears to be in hot water over antitrust issues again. The European Commission says it will require Microsoft to 'share more proprietary information with its rivals' and 'uncouple' it's Media Player audiovisual software from the Windows operating system." iCoach points to this article at The Register covering the same.
Wait until the next version of Windows comes out. That way if there is a negative decision for MS, they won't really be selling the incriminated software anymore. Instead they will be selling other software that takes advantage of their monopoly in some other, but equally devious way.
Good luck to the EU on this one though...
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
The calculator and command prompt can be uninstalled. The Start button itself is not an application, so I won't comment on that. But Explorer, which provides the start button and desktop can be replaced. IE and the Media Player, however, can not be uninstalled. What's next is anything that is integrated which can not be uninstalled yet has competition.
Developers: We can use your help.
Please make Microsoft explain why they bought key OpenGL patents during 2002 just to jump off the OpenGL group the year after.
Please, force them to keep those patents open to the community for at least fifteen more years, or something like that.
Another important fact that is being overlooked is that although Microsoft has had antitrust troubles since 1997, they've also remained profitable every year since 1997 - very profitable. This EU thing isn't going to change that, the DOJ was the big threat and that's no longer an issue. Even if Microsoft has to provide some way to fully remove Windows Media Player and provide more information to others, it's not going to all of a sudden make them an unprofitable company.
MS will not be gone in your lifetime, no matter how much you wish it.
Yes, I think it does matter.
There are companies that prefer to buy commercially developed software with support, guarantees etc. At the moment products such as Samba do work but cannot give any guarantee since MSFT might break their reverse-engineered implementation at any time. Office-compatability is sketchy as well and you never know if any document can be opened with other software.
If a formal spec to the protocol/fileformat/API is available and it is 100% legal to implement products based on these specs, others can easier implement products that use the protocol and they can guarantee that it works.
I think MS should be allowed to package any additional software it wants with windows as long as it is removable. MS does this to some extent already (some stuff can be chosen during install), but they could do a fair amount more.
I think the stability and security of Windows could also be greatly enhanced from the ability to remove parts from windows. Sick of IE vulnerabilities, uninstall it. I use a fair amount of additional software that is installed with windows (movie maker, media player, IE, etc.), but I wouldn't object is someone else wanted to remove those components from their system.
The flip side of the coin is the handiness of having things integrated. I like having the OS be feature rich out of the box. I don't like having to download additional software to perform basic tasks. I'm sure there are better calculators out there, but the one bundled with windows is ok for what I need it to do.
What the fuck did the french ever give us?
A victory in the American Revolution ?
What would Lemmy do?
I agree with you that "disable" this, break out that, are not the proper way to address the monopoly issue. The truth is that these approaches do nothing to redress the playing field. I for one would much rather see the EU state that OEMs and resellers must sell hardware without any preinstalled or bundled operating system. This would break Microsoft's grip on the OEM market which is the real remedy that is required. At that point, Joe Sixpack can choose the OS of their liking (for a price) and either have the onsite tech install it or install it themselves. If Microsoft truly has the best product, they would have nothing to fear with this arrangement.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Yes, which is why Jackson's remedy -- splitting the company up -- was the only one that made sense in the long run. Microsoft has never complied in any meaningful way with any lesser penalty, and there's no reason to believe they ever will.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Again, it's because there's basically no commercial competition to the window manager, GDI, DirectX, scheduler, ODBC subsystem, and file systems. There was competition for web browsers and media players. It was the way they handled those particlar applications (and others) that got them in trouble. Blending other software into the OS monopoly in order to undercut competition is the abuse of monopoly.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm sorry, but quicktime sucks ass... You can't go full screen, files don't play automatically when you double-click open them, the quality is shit, the list goes on and on. With realplayer, your viewing window is surrounded in crap, and it is generally annoying. I love when MS integrates software like this because it has no additional cost and doesn't shower me with ads.
Everytime microsoft integrates something to the os (and it is pretty decent), I don't have to cough up dough for a third-party product. I'm not going to pay $30 for quicktime pro when I get a superior media player for free.
I think open-source will provide constant, unbeatable competition to MS, and the end result won't be the downfall of MS, but a very dramatic increase in the quality of their operating system.
OS will be like a pace partner in running, they won't ever beat you, but they will make damn sure you are running hard the entire time.
The tricky part is that M$ is a monopoly. With 90-95% market share in Operating Systems, bundling browser with their operating system gives them 90-95% market share in browsers. Same goes for Media Player. This is considered as an unfair advantage.
getSexySig();
It's like the government telling automakers they're required to have cup holders suited for 64 oz cups in all vehicles
Actually, its more like telling the Microsoft Motor Corporation that hey are not allowed to sell cars designed to only work with the Microsoft Oil brand gasoline when there is no reason why it shouldn't also work with the competitor's gasoline.
You can't take the sky from me...
I don't understand the deal with windows media player or IE or zip or firewall or MSN..... You can use different software to play media files (the Playa, WinAMP, etc.) and Mozilla/Opera, Winzip, Zonealarm, ICQ so what's the big deal? Most OEM PCs come with different jukebox software installed or freely downloadable alternatives, so media player etc etc isn't mandated. This sounds like a pretty dumb thing, I would say most consumers like having a media player , web browser, zip program, firewall, IM client built in, who cares if its an MS player or not?
You must be one of Microsofts favorite customer types. The one that'll happily buy the Bundle(tm), with whatever middleware and applications Microsoft decided to snuff out this time around.
Somehow I don't think you've understood any of the reason why anti-trust laws exist. If you can make sure 95%+ of your target market has it installed by default, or just make it hard to replace or make replacements unreliable and not follow standards, you will take over the market regardless of your actual product qualities. That is not fair competition, that is abuse of your monopoly. Maybe the EU courts will be less blind, deaf and dumb than the American ones.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That depends on your definition of bundling. I bundling means that the option is available to be installed and uninstalled at the users whim, then Red Hat is bundling, and M$ is not.
However M$ has used its market & political clout to ensure that their software cannot be uninstalled. "Why?" you ask. The answer is obvious, to kill the competition. They produce a product that most end users will accept blindly and force distributers to use that product and not others. If it could be uninstalled, some companies might accually install another browser in its place.
Look at the transcripts from the Anti-trust suit over IE. Many major distributers (Compaq, Dell, etc.) were forced to remove Netscape as an installation option, or face the revocation of their license to install Windows on their systems. Micro$oft wouldn't do this if kind of marketing on a whim, and I don't think that they are doing it for tech support reasons.
Microsoft has a knowledgable grasp of consumer markets. The economy is driven by laziness. The key to dominance its to produce something difficult to remove and make it difficult to obtain alternatives.
This is my first post on Slashdot [Yay!], but I have to use it to do something that most people probably won't like, defend Microsoft.
;) ...
:) heh).
:)
You're allowed to do that, just be sure you have some valid points ready
Yes, I loathe the general instability of their products and the outrageous prices, but Microsoft is a company. A company in a capatilist system.
I believe the word you were looking for was "capitalistic" (although, that might have two L's I'm not completely sure
Why do we punish them for doing their job? People say they need to cripple a successful company in order to let lesser ones compete, but what companies are they helping?
Well, the Linux distributors certainly qualify, but think about the fact that there has not really been another commercial OS to make inroads into the desktop market.And don't quote superiority of Windows on the technical level, I might choke on my drink while laughing! I mean really, MS got where it was because, 1) a PR department from HELL, and 2) evil business practices (of which I won't detail, as this post is going to be longer than I wanted).
What OS is there that the general public [People on the AOL level of understanding] will want? I know Linux is great, but it is not something for the general public in its current flavor. Most end users won't understand what compile even means.
I couldn't tell you the last time I needed to compile something on Mandrake. And that is the distro targeted at the AOL-level users out there. I wouldn't know about Lindows, never used it, and don't plan to in the future, either. OTOH, compiling is handy if you have a piece of hardware and you need to compile a module, and that's something that shouldn't happen on an AOL user's system anyhow.(**Disclaimer: I use Mandrake on the desktop, Slackware on my server.)
My point in general, I guess, is that Microsoft does have a product for the general public, yet everyone sees having a good foothold on a market as a tyrannical thing.
Oh, they have more than a "good" foothold... And let's not spend too much time on HOW they attained it. Not to mention those same methods are still in use to maintain it.(And since they are declared a monopoly, they aren't allowed to use those methods.)
If people don't want to use Windows' Media Player, they don't have to. I use WinAmp, and it works perfectly. I don't worry one bit about WMP, I see no reason that Microsoft should be forced to rip away the Media Player for one, which would most likely lead to many more holes in the code which could cause even more errors when visiting web pages with any kind of audio or movies or even inserting a CD
True, you can use WinAMP in place of WMP. That's not completely the issue. Think about the "AOL user" as you put it earlier. If there is already an application of the sort the user needs, why are they going to bother going out to get another one. AOL users (generally) are too lazy to do that, they will just use what is available.
Well, I'm done on this post, have a good day
So, why is it wrong for MS... but alright for Red Hat, Mandrake, etc?
The Linux distributions, for example, bundle to increase user choice. Microsoft bundles applications to decrease user choice.
Why is this do difficult for many people to understand?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Why not let MS bundle any software it likes, but under one condition: It has to adher to open standards.
What's so sad is that many other companies do this by choice or are forced by the market, but Microsoft has to be forced to do it by governments. This is sickening.
Outside of Microsoft, the computer industry has settled on things like TCP/IP, NFS, POSIX, various ANSI standards, IEEE standards, several ISO standards, etc. just so any amount of progress is possible. When there is real competition, sometimes competitors really do what they don't like: working together for their common benefit. This is a good thing. But Microsoft is like the toddler who hasn't learned to share: mine, mine, mine! This is bad for anyone who does business with MS.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Lets see some real binary code reuse in linux, and not this crap where App A needs libfoo1.1.so and App B needs libfoo3.4.so. If I need two different versions of the library for two different apps, guess what, that ain't code reuse.
.avi, .wma. There are plenty of popular tools to generate .png/.jpg/.mpg, and windows actually supports these formats. More-over there are currently no proprietary "extensions". But word-documents are the foundation of the work-place. The fact that MS won in the office wars is not a problem. The fact that the format of office documents is not reliably renderable on peer machines is the problem.
Would you rather App A symply not work because App B's required libfoo3.4.so isn't backwardly compatible? Or would you rather have everything staticly linked?
Heck, half the time, libfoo1.1.so is a symlink to 3.4. I don't understand what your problem is.
I mean sue Microsoft when they break laws. Having a better product isn't anti-competitive. It is competitive, it's just that noone else is competing.
While in principle I agree with you (people should focus energies on outclassing MicroSoft), the reality is very different. The issue that has to be addressed is the barrier to entry.
1'st tier: Make an audio platform that can be used by 3'rd parties.
This would require that each apps that wants to use widget-class-X needs to be able to go fetch / download and install it without bothering the user. Any complications in this process are such that app developers won't want to be bothered or liable for the associated tech support. Thus, if there is a "standard" garunteed installation of widget-class-X, then any sane developer would use the default. Since MS ships many and eventually all widget-classes, the defaults are usually/always MicroSoft apps.
BUT, any such app is really just part of a widget-class. Thus any non MicroSoft producer is likely to not be purchased if there is already a bundled default.
The cycle repeats itself as MS includes more and more default widgets.. Now you may think this trivial for something like media.. Maybe you even think it's trivial for a web browser... How about a web server? How about a file-system diagnostics? So on and so forth.
Now you could argue that these attributes are part of the Operating Environment (OS is a tainted word). This is merely the platform for the "real" user applications. Like video games, office products, money/resource managers, etc.
But the next issue is application interaction. Media is regularly communicated between different PC's.. Via email/sneaker-net/etc. The format of that media MUST be compatible.. Thus either you need an application that can render the media or you need to own the same software-vendor's media-package.
By media, I'm actually speaking of word-processing, spread-sheets, presentors more than jpg,
The reason MS is the champion of office apps is because they killed off their competition, and they've managed to get people to regularly upgrade to the latest version.
They way they do this is through lack of backward compatibility... If userX upgrades office; they'll generate documents that are not renderable by other peer users. Thus what often happens is that other users are greatly encouraged to upgrade as well.
Likewise, competing WordPerfect or what-have-you is generally incompatible and thus TCO is reduced if only a single vendor is consolidated to..
Thus their monopoly developed out of a cripling of one of the points of an application; interfacability (being interfacing with the user or other apps).
To be fair, it is unlikely that they went too far out of their way to hold a proprietary format.. It is more the fact that they didn't abstract the document format from the rendering process. (Embedded links to applications). I'm sure they made a contious design decision to lock customers in, however.
The problem is that once a person is has something that is adaquate, they will be unwilling to replace it was something completely new.
The end result then becomes an unregulatable monopoly. This monopoly allows them to basically tax every computer-bering man-woman-and-company on the face of the planet.. That in turn gives them enough resources to hire large numbers of "talented" people. Which in turn allows them to more quickly write widget-classes to encroach into ever newer markets, persisting the cycle.
The problems for the end user are that we're basically semi-willing citizens of an software dictator.. If they charge more money, we're forced to pay (their military is the BSA). If they break compatibility and successfully promote a version upgrade in one segment of the world, eventually everybody must upgrade to follow sute; and thereby pay their MS-tax. If they want to police you (as in 1984) then they are fully capable: (media player CD-title taddle-taleing, Win-Update installed-software taddle-taleing, and lord knows what-else).
Our lives within the computer are litterly based on the whims of MS. The only thing that prevents them for doing more to subvert us and charge more from us are practicality measures.. Suppy and demand limits their fees (but they grow as much as as fast as they can), policy viability (Their hailstorm failed in it's first attempt).
MS MUST be checked somehow, and it is unlikely to be viable through competition. Even if we wanted to, we could not all migrate to Mac's (the next most practical alternative). The application base just isn't there.
-Michael
Please explain to me (using short words - remember, i am a moron) how bundling media player with windows decreases my choices.
Fact: some flavor of Windows is installed on greater than 90% of home and business desktops.
Fact 2: A new market emerges, where multiple companies are producing multimedia players which can stream music and video over the internet to Windows-based desktops. These players become popular, even though users have to install them as third-party software. This isn't a really big deal to them, however.
Fact 3: Microsoft sees that streaming multimedia players are becoming popular and realize how easy it is to take over that market. So, they create a new player program, which uses proprietary undocumented file formats and uses proprietary undocuemented API resources, and they bundle this program for free with all new releases of Windows and provide downloads for old releases of Windows.
Fact 4: Being oblivious to the proprietary nature of the new player, most of the users for those 90% of home and business desktops begin using it, because it is convenient and seems to perform better than the alternatives.
Fact 5: The market share of the original implementations plummets, their companies disappear or are left to forage as niche or boutique companies, and suddenly there is only one viable popular streaming multimedia player available!
It's that simple.
This formula works for web browsers (IE), office suites (Office, of course), graphics APIs (DirectX), operating systems (DR-DOS), and compression software (Stac), too. A similar argument can even be made concerning e-mail server software (Exchange), diagramming software (Visio), and probably lots of other things I've forgotton or have been swept under the rug by MS' PR department.
And, this whole thing depends on Microsoft maintaining a monopoly on desktop operating system software (See fact #1 above).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin