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
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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