RealNetworks Sues Microsoft Over Antitrust Issues

jamacdon writes "Yahoo! has an article about RealNetworks Inc. filing an antitrust suit against Microsoft, claiming that MS has violated antitrust laws. This claim appears to revolve around how PC makers are restricted from including competing media players. Very similiar to the Internet Explorer issue, but different content. Will the results be the same?"

Comments

Re:It might werk.

[badriram]

Not exactly, if you go to Add and Remove Windows Components, you can remove WMP. After the Anti-trust suit, microsoft also does not insist that no other media be installed by OEM. Plus Real just sucks....

Re:It might werk.

[fermion]

Why does real suck? I use it on OS X and am quite happy with it. I can turn off most of the spy features. Most content I download actually works. Many of my favorite sites support it seamlessly.

OTH, I do not even bother with WMP anymore. Nine times of ten there is a message about a needed update, a needed verification, or some website that must be consulted. WMP is wonderful at delivering eyeballs to advertisers to or 'protecting' digital content. As far as efficiently delivering good enough content to consumers, it fails totally.

And I understand you may be talking about image quality or sound quality, but that is why I have quicktime.

Re:Microsoft suddenly everyone's positive cash flo

[Fjornir]

Fine, why not encourage these developers to develop for Linux instead? If their software is technically superior and wanted then this is the idea community for it.

Real, at least for their server software is (or was...) almost entirely a Linux shop. Real helped Linux make inroads into the server market at a LOT of companies. I'm still under NDA so I'm only mentioning two of the ones I could find press releases for quickly, but this includes companies with great big satelite networks (PanAmSat for one), a couple of great big phone companies (like Deutshce Telecom)...

Real also helped a lot in the fight to get Linux drivers for a whole bunch of video capture cards...

...doesn't excuse the shit they pulled, but...

RealPlayer lost because it is inferior

[kylef]

I disagree...

Have any of you used RealPlayer lately? While WMP 9 has been getting more and more functional in terms of quality and features (surround-sound media formats, HD-quality video, built-in ripping and encoding, a usable Media Library), RealPlayer has become progressively bloated, ad-ridden, and full of spy-ware. The fact that I have to search through the registry to disable the stupid "Real Message Center" background app is infuriating to me, and is the major reason why I avoid it and tell others to do the same.

And the fact that they make it almost impossible to remove WMP in XP will make the case that much more believable.

First of all, why must the two be mutually exclusive? I have both of them installed on my PC quite happily. When I double-click on a RealMedia file, the Windows Shell launches RealPlayer. When I double-click on a WindowsMedia file, the shell launches WMP 9. How is this "lock-out"?

Second of all, how can there really be "lock-out" when there is so much competition in the Media Player market? Aside from iTunes for Windows, there is also Winamp 2/3/5, QuickTime, Sonique, Media Player Classic, and several other lesser-known ones. They all work great on Windows, and co-exist just fine with Media Player.

The only argument I see here is Real whining that Microsoft should have to distribute RealPlayer for them. In other words, Media Player has an unfair advantage because it ships with Windows. Well, duh. But now the government should protect RealPlayer because it is not installed with Windows?

Here's a suggestion for Real: Make a better player, and you'll gain market share the old-fashioned way. Through customers who WANT to use your software, not just because it's there.

Re:RealPlayer lost because it is inferior

[zurab]

Have any of you used RealPlayer lately? While WMP 9 has been getting more and more functional in terms of quality and features (surround-sound media formats, HD-quality video, built-in ripping and encoding, a usable Media Library), RealPlayer has become progressively bloated, ad-ridden, and full of spy-ware.

Isn't that the point? That Microsoft doesn't make any money out of WMP, while Real's business is selling their player software and subscription? Microsoft can jack up price for Windows because they are a monopoly, they can literally enforce that OEMs don't negotiate with Real and forbid them to distribute RealPlayer while theirs comes preinstalled. Those facts are very close to Netscape's case.

The fact that I have to search through the registry to disable the stupid "Real Message Center" background app is infuriating to me, and is the major reason why I avoid it and tell others to do the same.

How is this relevant? You are saying "I don't like RealPlayer, therefore, laws should not apply." It's irrelevant whether you think RealPlayer is good software or not, or whether you recommend others to use it. That doesn't prevent Real from defending its rights when others abuse it.

... how can there really be "lock-out" when there is so much competition in the Media Player market? Aside from iTunes for Windows, there is also Winamp 2/3/5, QuickTime, Sonique, Media Player Classic, and several other lesser-known ones. They all work great on Windows, and co-exist just fine with Media Player.

Also exactly the case with Netscape which could easily be installed next to IE. That's not the issue. I am guessing one of the main issues would be whether MS is locking out RealPlayer by forcing OEMs not to negotiate with Real.

The only argument I see here is Real whining that Microsoft should have to distribute RealPlayer for them.

You are getting this all wrong. Not Microsoft. They are likely complaining that they can't enter into contracts and arrangements with OEMs because MS forcefully forbids OEMs to do so. That would be a misapplication of MS' monopoly power with their Windows OS.

Re:This is stupid.

[scottblascocomposer]

The complaint isn't that MS won't package RealCrap on their install disc. The complaint is that supposedly MS is, by predatory and restrictive licencing, essentially forbidding manufacturers from packaging competitors' media players.

Otherwise, you're right, this would be absurd. If the actual accusation were in fact the case, this would be essentially a smaller "browser war," but it clearly is not, as many Dell customers on Slashdot have attested.

Re:Will the result be the same?

[squiggleslash]

Interestingly, though it was headlined differently, charging Mac users for IE is exactly the direction Microsoft is going in.

IE for Mac is still being developed. However, the only way to get it is via MSN. The MSN suite will not run on your Mac unless you pay the subscription. And, funnily enough, Microsoft has a tariff for those who already have Internet connections and just need access to the MSN software (and those parts of MSN behind MSN's walled garden that nobody really knows about anyway.)

So IE for Mac costs about $120/year. Food for thought...

Re:It might werk.... DONT CLICK ON THAT LINK!

[otprof]

For the love of $DEITY, man! My eyes... the pain...

[mods shouldn't mod your stupid sig up along with you insightful comment.]

Re:It might werk.

[Trepalium]

WMP on Windows is hellishly fast. You're given a choice between the new interface(WMP9, fluffy) and the old one(WMP6, minimalist) on XP, and they're both equivalent in functionality due to the fact that they're actually just frontends for DirectShow.

Not exactly. If you want to play stuff created in Windows Media 9 format, you need to install extra software that isn't well advertised. In addition, WMP6 can't handle streaming media from servers that expect 7 or later. The only way to use version 7 streaming stuff is to use something like Gabest's Media Player Classic, which can also play Real, QT, Bink, and 'Matroska' formatted files if you have the appropriate codecs installed.

Helix

[Enucite]

That's why they're working on this:

https://www.helixcommunity.org/