Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Defies EU Commission
otahkgeek writes "Wired News is reporting that Microsoft claims that by removing Windows Media Player from Windows, it would be forced to ship a substandard version to European consumers. This is on the heels of a three-day hearing by a European commission to determine the validity of charges that Microsoft illegally abused its power over the home computer market."
Shipping a substandard OS to European customers? ;)
How is this news? They've been doing that for years.
Will the substandard DRM free, anti American version be available in North America for purchase or will I have to pirate a copy.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I don't need a media player with the operating system, just an operating system. That's cheaper, right?
At some point someone is going to have to stand up to them. Being able to dodge bullets wouldn't hurt, but hopefully, whoever finally does won't have to.
Microsoft claims that by removing Windows Media Player from Windows, it would be forced to ship a substandard version to European consumers.
Is it me or I'm the only one who thinks this is an oxymoron?
R.
If it works... dont fix it! This is why MS needs to be put in check.
~ Maintainer of the Skajake Projects
Or put some kind of huge levy on them, like $20 per copy of Windows brought into the country untill the WMP is removed, and ban Microsoft from raising the price (both to consumers and to OEMs) so that they can't pass on the cost. Again, when they start to lose a lot of money, maybe they're realize that something bad WILL happen to them, it's not just a bluff.
Either way, I'd like to see the EU (or ANYONE) just stick it to MS for once to show them they can't keep pushing everyone around. And, if the EU forces someone to offer a "inferior version", shouldn't they be forced to sell that inferior version or NOTHING? Microsoft has called your bluff, so step up to the plate!
At this point, I think that a breakup (into OS, Office, Games, Hardware, and Other) would have made things so much better for us all.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
So what exactly isn't an OS supposed to do? This argument could be made for ANYTHING MS wanted to put into Windows.
Internet browsing, function.
Media player, function.
Word & speadsheet processing, function.
Image editing, function.
Developer IDE, function.
Cost of OS, $400.
I suspect you're referring to the same "most people" who don't use Internet Explorer (a truly inferior product) for their web-browsing needs - in other words, "a minority of people." I use Windows XP (surprisingly, the best Microsoft OS I've used) and I find that that Windows Media Player, with the appropriate codecs installed, works quite well for a wide variety of multimedia files. The idea that "most people" using Windows are using an outside multimedia viewer/player when the software that comes with the system works fine is laughable.
MS is basically daring the EU to try to punish it, because they can't without hurting themselves. If MS were to pull out of Europe, the damage would be huge.
Sure, all of Europe could convert to Linux... but they'd be forced to. As a result, a lot of hardware would have to be replaced and a lot of software would have to be replaced. Banning Windows would be quite the expensive proposition, and MS could damage the whole EU economy by threatening to walk... Bully Bill will get his way.
Like they say: A computer without Windows Media Player is like a dog without a brick tied to its head.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
That being the case, how many here think the EU will actually bother to stand up to Microsoft in the end? My bet is that the EU will continue to make noise about Microsoft until Microsoft pays them off (quietly, behind the scenes, of course), at which point the EU will quietly decide not to "go forward" with any sort of real action against Microsoft. At most, the EU will probably give Microsoft a good wrist-slapping ("Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!").
Only if a more powerful multinational corporation attempts to influence the EU against Microsoft will the EU really do anything.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I couldn't give two hoots about Real to be honest. Their product has always been substandard and intensely irritating. What I am concerned about is that by muscling the competition out that MSFT get to set the standards for file formats, network protocols etc. This is far more lucrative to them, and has far more potential to limit our choices as users. It certainly won't be favourable to our pocket books.
Besides, the closest competition that the article mentions, RealPlayer, has constantly been flamed as bloated spyware. What's the difference between WMP and RP? Choice? I can choose to load up IE (or Opera, or Firebird, or Lynx W32) and download a different media player.
If the EU forces MS to take out WMP, then they should also remove Notepad, Calculator, MS Paint, Address Book, Hyperterminal... the list goes on.
What MS could do instead: ship with a non-WMP Windows version, then ask the user every day if they'd like to update their computer to include WMP.
[__] No thanks, go away
[__] Yes please!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
First of all, a monopoly is "the only supplier of a product for which there is no close substitute." (according to my Modern Industrial Organization textbook, by Carlton and Perloff.) This definition, and most others, have nothing to do with "market rights from the government". Those are simply government-established monopolies.
Now, from a practical standpoint, a company is a monopoly if it exerts too much influence in one market (basically a company that is close to a textbook monopoly). They have the ability to manipulate price to increase profits for themselves and by doing so create a deadweight loss to market (consumers lose a lot, monopoly gains some, some "welfare" just goes away).
Monopolies can be "natural" in some markets, usually those where fixed costs are high (think electrical companies with massive grids and expensive power plants). Many monopolies are left alone as long as they don't (overly) abuse their market power, usually by using that market influence to gain influence in a new market. This brings about anti-trust actions. With Microsoft, they leveraged their operating system "monopoly" to make their Internet Explorer the dominant browser in the market (by giving it away and tying it to the OS). They have been found guilty of this, but it's easy to see them using their market power in other areas as well.
Even if you were to define a "monopoly" as a company given that power by the government, one can make an argument for that with Microsoft as well. Copyrights and patents are what allows Microsoft to produce products that others could not simply resell at a lower price, decompile/disassemble and release the modified code, etc. (legally). However, most people see a need for copyrights and patents to encourage people to produce "intellectual property" and be able to make some money off of it.
In general, the function of government is to try to improve the welfare of its citizens, and reducing a monopoly's power has that effect.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Untying WMP from Windows wouldn't result in PCs shipping with no media player installed -- it would just put the choice in the hands of OEMs, rather than Microsoft.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Those "features" should, however, be optional.
Completely removing Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer is going a little too far. They should just implement some of the earlier suggestions in the U.S. trials by making each of those "features" an optional install at the BEGINNING of the install process. Have a Customize button just like in Mac OS that lets you choose which features you want to have installed on the OS.
I think the difference between an Application and an OS feature for Microsoft is whether or not those "features" are available for other operating systems. For example, Windows Media Player should not be a feature because it's a full fledged application for Mac OS. Likewise with Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer (though Microsoft could get away with Explorer still since they no longer offer it for Mac OS.)
I find it irksome that when it comes to security Microsoft likes to point out the distinctions between "features" and OS when considering a security hole. If there's a security problem with Internet Explorer, they don't call it Windows, they make sure everyone knows it's just Internet Explorer and not the "OS". Likewise if there's a problem with Windows, it has nothing to do with Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc.
So if Microsoft likes to refer to these "features" as separate entities in relation to security, then they should be treated as such and made removable during installation.
A monopoly is a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government.
No, that is a definition of a utility, such as a power company, or cable service. The price that the entity pays for having exclusive rights is that it is HEAVILY regulated by the local, state, and federal government. Are you suggesting that Microsoft is a not a monopoly, but a utility that should be subject to heavy government regulation?
The US Postal Service is a monopoly
Technically, no. The US Postal Service was considered an organ of government. Do you call the Federal Judicial system a monopoly? The federal government has offloaded that function to a non-governmental entity, in order to improve its efficiency.
Standard Oil was a company that did not get exclusive market rights from the federal government, but was able to use its market position to extort profits from its consumers. It was also able to crush competitors by either lowering its prices to prevent either of them from making a profit, or prevent them from gaining access to materials to produce their product. This is the generally accepted definition of a monopoly. It does not require a coercion from the government.
While I do respect your libertarian point of view, I question whether you genuinely understand what constitutes a monopoly.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Nonsense, I use WMP for my music all the time. The trick is to disable the DRM feature. On my Win XP computer, open up Media Player, go to Tools, Options. On the Options window, go to the Copy Music tab, and make sure the "Protect content" box is unchecked.
Windows Media Player is stable, and it organizes my music nicely (Granted, I don't have a huge collection of music, so YMMV). I've had IE crash on me more times than WMP has (IE has crashed more in these last few days than since I got it; it's probably because the laptop isn't Suspending properly. Anyway, WMP has crashed maybe once or twice. Not too shabby), and WMP is constantly running in the background. Dell shipped MusicMatch Jukebox preloaded onto my laptop, but I haven't used it, nor do I intend to. Dell's branded version of Musicmatch is, in my opinion, buggy and bloated.
Not to mention, I downloaded MusicMatch onto my 5 yr old Compaq Armada, running Win 98, and it's as slow as molasses when loading and running MusicMatch. Interestingly enough, when I uninstalled MusicMatch and installed the latest version of WMP (keep in mind this is a 5yr old Win 98 Compaq Armada) it worked fine. So I left WMP on it.
Say what you like about MS software, but WMP is off limits. It's a good program. Besides, what is Joe Sixpack going to do without WMP? Search around for other solutions? No way. Joe probably doesn't know there are alternate programs for music playback.
I wonder if the EU has thought of just including MS products in the 100% tariffs category (along with things like sunglasses and motorbikes) that they are allowed (by the WTO) to impose on imports from the US as a retalitory measure to the illegal US steel tariffs. Come to think of it, weren't countries like Japan, China, Korea, Australia as well as a host of others also part of the WTO judgement (on the side of the EU) as well?
So Dubya, keep those illegal steel tariffs! Remember you need to win votes in steel producing states in the next election!
There are times when I wish we could mod stories down, so that stories like this could be killed. For anyone that reads the article, it talks about what MS told the EU about what they insist are the ramifications of removing WMP from Windows, but the title is "Microsoft Defies EU Commission". Please tell me where it states that MS isn't complying with the EU, or otherwise doing something that is defying the EU(other than the monopoly issue at hand). This is a disagreement with the EU, perhaps even a strong one, but for MS to defy the EU they must either act when they shouldn't, or not act when they should; you can't defy the EU when the action in question never left the proposal stage.
A simple tweak to copyright laws would largely fix this. Make secret file formats and copyright protection a mutually exclusive choice. Copyright was originally instituted to encourage open publication. Therefore, it should only be fair that software which enjoys copyright protection must be provided with the full open specifications of the file formats it uses. This ensures that there will always be a free market for that type of application, and users are better off because their their valuable data is not held hostage under the exclusive control of an external vendor.
Of course, if a file format is so stupendously elite that a software vendor can't stand to publish it, they could always choose to release their programs without copyright protection. The choice would be theirs.
Even if people don't have the guts to univerally institute a reform like this today (and they most certainly don't), this condition could have been applied very effectively to the special case of the original Microsoft antitrust trial. It would have been less absurd than breaking the company up, and it would help restore a free market in desktop software. We wouldn't have to worry about WMP and its proprietary formats taking over the digital television and movie publication markets just because Microsoft locks in deals with a critical mass of content producers and nobody else can figure out how it works. They could bundle WMP to their heart's content, but competitors wouldn't be locked out of using native WMA formats.
There are those that would argue that exposing secret file formats is unfair to the software vendor. However, there are times when the harm to the public of keeping product information secret outweighs the economic benefit gained by the industry selling the products. Not many people today would argue that we should abolish food ingredients lists on labels to help protect the proprietary interests of food manufacturers. Now, it's just a fact of doing business in the food industry. They compete in other areas than top secret ingredients lists, and we all benefit from being able to know what we're eating.
I'm sure this will get modded down as a troll, but I feel I must clear my chest. I say bravo to Microsoft for giving them the finger. You buy the software "as is". Windows comes with Internet Explorer, Outbreak Express, and the Win Media Player - for everyone. That's the way it is. They are not in the business of customizing their operating system for certain audiences. It is my uderstanding that the EU sees WMP as a threat to other multimedia technologies, but I don't think they should force MS to remove their application as a solution. Truth of the matter is you don't see anyone jumping on Apple's case for having built-in web, email, and multimedia. If roles were reversed, and everybody used a Mac, would the EU be telling Apple that they should unbundle Quicktime with their os due to monopolistic practices?? I feel the Union is overstepping its boundries... I don't belive that Microsoft has a superior product with WMP, and I believe their response to the EU was a nice way of saying, "screw off, we're not going to reengineer our crap!" And honestly people, how many times have you wanted to say that yourself?
I planned on inserting something witty here but never got around to it.
Microsoft did NOT develop the concept of an operating system if that whats you mean. They didn't develope the concept of personal computers. They didn't develope the concept of operating systems for personal computers. They didn't develop the concept of a windowing system and graphical interface. They didn't develop the concept of a web browser. They didn't write the code that formed MS-DOS, they didn't write the code that formed NT, they didn't develope the concept of a media player. They didn't develope the concept of a terminal server, mail server, games, dialer, card games, command line, batch files, file system permissions, compression, acl's, networkable drives, web server, ftp server, text editor the list goes on and on.
The list of things that weren't microsoft's idea goes forward to encompase every concept and application you will find produced by Microsoft (not just all the ones in the operating system).
They invented... NONE of it. They innovated... NONE of it. They developed... NONE of it.
They may have written some fringe code themselves (not sure it can be proven microsoft itself has even written a line to be honest), but they certainly didn't write any of the core functionality.
Who knows it might be a mistake to say microsoft writes bad code, if they ever actually wrote some it might be pretty good stuff. But it's all theory until they do, for now I expect they'll continue to get it all via subcontracting and stealing the produce from business deals in which they screw the other party (*cough* NT *cough*).
Yes, because I trust the OEMs to act in my best interest and Microsoft not to maniplate the process.
Little OEM guy scenario:
OEM: We have decided to bundle Netscape, AOLIM, and Realplayer instead of IE, MSNIM, and Media Player.
Microsoft: Oh. Well, in that case, let's reevaluate our pricing structure here... [tapping on calcuator], yes I think we can accommodate you [slides calucator across the table].
OEM: But that will destroy our profits!
Microsoft: So raise your prices.
OEM: Then we can't compete with the other guys!
Microsoft: Your breaking my heart here...
Big OEM guy scenario:
Peon: Sir, why don't we bundle Netscape and AOLIM instead of Microsoft products this year? Ya know, give our consumers a taste of something else?
CEO: Umm... but I don't golf with the AOL people. I golf with Mr. Gates and he assures me that his products are the best.
Peon: Ok sir, could we perhaps bundle both and offer our customers the choice?
CEO: Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but I have my tee time to worry about... besides, we have this established relationship with Microsoft, why should we rock the boat?
Peon: *sighing* Alright sir, I'll go tell 'em to bundle the Microsoft stuff again.
CEO: Good job.... and son?
Peon: Yes sir?
CEO: Good work.
Call me cynical....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Before you move to Europe, do some looking around first. They're just as capitalistic as the US.
Well, I'm from Belgium (obviously), and I have the impression our government watches big corporations VERY closely as such matters are concerned. Sure, we are capitalistic too, because we support the free market and open up government businesses for denationalisation.
But our government is not turning fascist on us, it doesn't restrict civil liberties because the Corporation asks them. They have no reason to, because political parties can't accept money from companies without creatin an extensively-covered scandal.
"Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun."
I'm not sure about anti-American, but Knoppix is not hard to find in the US, yet. You don't need to break any laws to download and run it either, yet.
Oh yeah, "Digital Rights Management" is un-American. It gimps my press and that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When someone else has control of what files can and can't be coppied or created on my primary writng instrument, I have no free press, speech or ability to petition my government. If I'm unable to share files from my primary writing instrument, I'm effectively forbiden to publish. Nothing short of universal censorship will make DRM work and nothing could be less American than that.
Microsoft is not just an embarasement to the technical community, they are an embarasement to all of us.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"Starting Tuesday, we will no longer recognize Microsoft copyrights in Europe."
Last time I checked Apple did not have exclusive deals with OEMs so as to have QuickTime preinstalled on each and every PC sold.
Monopolies have additional limits to what they do, so that they don't abuse their position on the market. MS falls in this category, Apple does not.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
They are not a legal monopoly.
Correct. They are an illegal monopoly.
The nature of legal monopolies is that they are extremely regulated by government bodies. This is required because there are not the market forces in play to ensure fair play by the monopolies.
Actually the EU has a history of taking quite unexpected steps against companies or governments that do not comply with its regulations. It may be very boring and sometimes hard to follow, but the EU (both as an organization and as a trade block) is a true powerhouse when it comes to economics that does not think lightly of splitting up companies, refusing mergers, forcing governments to change centuries old judicial procedures, ban politically sensitive subsidies et cetera. If they set their minds to it, Microsoft may be in for a bigger fight than they were in the United States.
Those interested in a nicely-hacked, small-footprint version of WMP should take a look at Media Player Classic.
The nice thing about WMP is that it's a self-contained executable, it allows you to add any DirectShow filters you may have installed, supports Quicktime and RealMedia (that's right! get rid of those ugly, bloated pieces of dogshit), as well as DVD support and built-in support for TV cards.
Basically, it does everything, weighs in at under a meg, and looks and feels just like Media Player 6.4. Get it. Now.
Correct,
however the President of the EU changes every 6 months and has very little power (at present, this might change). He's just a figurehead. The real power is held by the Comission and the minister council (which consists of the leaders of every member state (Blair, Scroeder, etc..))