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.
You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars *next* year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
They've had to "uncouple" IE. Now they're being asked to uncouple Media Player.
What's next? Uncoupling the calculator? The start button? Command prompt?
Following this line of thinking ad absurdum, what exactly is Microsoft allowed to package with Windows? Sheesh!
In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
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
(comic book guy voice) Most impossible to understand comment, ever (/voice)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
It's like telling a thief to "steal less". As long as Microsoft does non-free software (as opposed to GPL or BSD-style), rulings like this will only help legitimize them rather than raise concerns of their ongoing practices.
Of course Microsoft will do everything in its power to find a loop hole or get the decision overturned.
I wonder if MS was hoping that nobody would notice they did the same thing with Media Player that they did is MSIE.
I could see a conversation between a consumer and MS now:
Consumer: "Hey! You guys are shoving Media Player down my throat."
MS: "Media player? What Media Player?"
Consumer:"Oh, come on! You didn't actually think nobody would notice did you?"
*MS waves hand in front of consumers face*
MS:"There is no Media Player."
Consumer:"There is no media player."
MS:"You don't want any plugins."
Consumer:"I don't want any plugins."
MS:"Move along."
Consumer:"Move alone. Move along."
The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
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.
This overlooks an important fact: MS's money in the bank belongs to its shareholders. If the business model of MS, for some reasons becomes worthless, then the value of the company will be reduced to its tangible assets, which are essentially this cash and participation in other companies. Shareholders, which will have by then seen most of their investment value disappear, will have all authority to cut their losses and pocket the money, and MS will still be gone.
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.
Just a brainstorm solution for *all bundling* of software: Why not let MS bundle any software it likes, but under one condition: It has to adher to open standards. If it wants to distribute WMP, let it do so, but only the codecs that play open and well-defined media formats. So it has the choice to remove WMx-files or to document them fully. The same line of reasoning could be followed for future inappropriateness. dizzl
I'm sorry, but this is idiotic. I've had about enough of this 'coupling' shit.
This is how it works:
Media Player and IE are both FULLY REUSABLE ActiveX components that come with windows. Any windows developer can 100% rely on the fact that they will be installed on a windows machine (Well, not 100% with media player, but with IE, 100%). This means you can add simple media playback and web functionality to a program without having to purchase external tools or spend hours integrating some external solution!
I don't WANT components I rely on to be uninstalled. All Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer really ARE is glorified activex component hosts. The real work is done by DirectShow and the Microsoft HTML library.
I can see how this is bad for competition, but we're going after the wrong target here - IE and Media Player aren't the problem; the way they're being used is.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
The EU commission unlike its American counterparts is made up of a diverse mixture of cultures and backgrounds.
Playing to the commission and its composition authority will be orders of magnitude more difficult than doing it in the US, especially the French and Germans.
Not to say its not possible, just a lot more difficult.
Independence? That's middle-class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth. G.B Shaw
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.
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.
No, not Media Player, but that Real crap. I wish they'd just go tits up (nod to the reg). If Microsoft reigns for a thousand years and slaughters helpless companies left and right, it'll be a small price to pay if it rids the earth of the real player. Oh forgive me, the realone player.
Bill Gates (to developers): Drop everything and concentrate on security for the next 6 months.
Bill Gates (to lawyer fleet): Drop everything and concentrate on finding loopholes for me for the next 6 months.
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
I enjoy having media player come with windows, but it does give Microsoft even more power in the industry. The long term cost to consumers from this market power could be greater than the short-term cost of further separating Media Player. Secondly, Microsoft does need provide more information to third party software developers. According to this article at ZDNet http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t297-s2121402,00. html "Microsoft used undocumented application programming interfaces (APIs) to make the company's software work better with Windows than competitor's" products. This is an example of the anti-competitive behavior Microsoft exhibits.
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.
Tell them to have the U.N. write a resolution against you. That way everybody wins: they get to look busy, and you don't ever have to comply!
"Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
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 $30 for quicktime pro when I get a superior media player for free.
I think open-source will provide constant, unbeatable competition to MS, and the end result won't be the downfall of MS, but a very dramatic increase in the quality of their operating system.
OS will be like a pace partner in running, they won't ever beat you, but they will make damn sure you are running hard the entire time.
Another important fact that is being overlooked is that although Microsoft has had antitrust troubles since 1997, they've also remained profitable every year since 1997 - very profitable. This EU thing isn't going to change that,
...MS will not be gone in your lifetime, no matter how much you wish it.
Unlike the Bush-defanged DOJ, the EU commission has real teeth. I suppose that if MS plays its usual games of evading things they agree to, it may be in for some of that "10% of worldwide income" treatment. That's real money, it's going to hurt.
Just like DEC isn't gone and Compaq isn't gone.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
The tricky part is that M$ 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
Since when can a government entity tell you what to or not to include in your software?
Since when? Ever since Microsoft was found to be a monopoly in a court of law, that's when.
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
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