Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Agrees to Stop Hijacking Music-Shopping
ScottSpeaks! writes "CNN , ABC, and others are reporting that Microsoft has agreed to fix Windows XP so that it no longer launches IE (instead of the user's chosen default browser) when the user selects the "Shop for Music Online" option in Windows XP. MS isn't admitting that it's a violation of the consent decree they signed to get the DoJ to drop the anti-trust suit against them, but threats to take them to court over it are what prompted the move."
Microsoft has agreed to fix Windows XP so that it no longer launches IE (instead of the user's chosen default browser) when the user selects the "Shop for Music Online" option in Windows XP
Pops up Mozilla... "This site requires IE 6.0 to be viewed".
C'mon, it's not that difficult...
how long until
[from the CNN article:]
[from the ABC article:] Microsoft has agreed to make changes in its Windows XP operating system to satisfy US government concerns [...] "Without necessarily agreeing with the Department's position, Microsoft has agreed to remove the override of the user's default browser..
Why is it that whenever these crooks are forced to follow the rules of any legal settlement it's spun in such a way as to appear like they're doing the consumer a favour? "offer [the patch] for download" and "Microsoft has agreed"?!
[sarcasm]Thank you so very much, Bill.[/sarcasm]
Trolling is a art,
MS isn't admitting that it's a violation of the consent decree they signed to get the DoJ to drop the anti-trust suit against them, but threats to take them to court over it are what prompted the move."
........without turning this whole thing into an anti-Microsoft rant, (I fear this will happen) we hear this kind of thing again and again from Microsoft. Microsoft violates (again) the terms of the anti-trust trial and says "ooops, my mistake." and agrees to change its behavior (barely). How do they keep getting away with it? I don't really have an answer for it but, they appear to have a somewhat schizophrenic relationship with their potential markets.
:-)
So,
The issue here is manifold: 1) Microsoft is a monopoly (not necessarily bad), 2) Microsoft leverages that monopoly against other markets (bad). The problem is that they really can't help themselves because their shareholders (disclaimer: I own some Microsoft stock) demand greater returns on their investment and they really don't know how to do anything differently. Microsoft is maturing and recently has paid out dividends (about time), but they seem to be continuously stumbling over their own feet in various markets. Microsoft has some smart folks there (including a few friends of mine), but as a whole the company has the appearance of a bunch of malicious geeks who are smart, but are not very creative, resulting in a desperate desire to be cool and seen as cool. This could be a result of marketing management keeping the programmers etc... under control, but Microsoft as a whole lacks that essence of coolness that gives them an edge. Therefore the predatory nature of the monopoly as they gobble up every concept that could be seen as giving Microsoft some degree of edge. It also might be that they are so big, they really don't have the ability to move very quickly or be objective in their analysis of markets. I would bet that if they broke themselves into a number of different companies (that even had the possibility of competing with each other), they would be much more competitive and would prove a much better return on investment.
Come on Bill, how would you like to be the principal of five or six big companies? One company can only get you so far you know.....?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
So the user can install a different browser on their own but have to rely on the "shop for music online" button? I don't know where this "feature" is, but is this something that redirects people to one of Microsoft's sites that's designed to work with IE? If so, I'd hijack the link as well.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Maybe I'm being dense, but what's the big deal with Microsoft launching their browser for their music shopping service? If they'd used a browser control on their own app, would anyone have complained? It's not like there aren't 1000 other places online to buy music.
Really, perhaps the issue should be the existance of a "buy music online" selection in XP at all. I hate all those pre-loaded ads that come disguised as usability enhancements.
Is software at the point in it's evolution that any major changes only happen when there is a lawsuit involved? This is not only a microsoft phenomenon but I am starting to see it in all new software. WHEN DID THE DAMN LAWYERS START DICTATING WHAT THE SOFTWARE SHOULD DO ???? If GNU was not around to prove that software does not have to be created by committee this world would be a lot worse place than it is now. IMHO the open source community is becoming more than just about software and more about what is wrong with society as a whole.
Stay tuned for new sig...
I think the only real surprise to me here is that someone bothered to call MS on the rule-breaking.
That's good to see.
I wonder how many people will bother to download the patch though; I doubt many people keep up to date on that sort of thing. Sneaky on the part of MS, really. By the time someone noticed that they were breaking the rules, it was too late for the vast majority of Windows users.
As I understand it, the purchase music stuff is a button in Windows Media Player. If you use Windows Media Player to purchase music, don't you expect that it will send you to whomever Microsoft wants you to purchase music from?
Seriously, this complaint is equivalent to asking Apple to send you to Napster when you shop for music with iTunes. It's utterly stupid, and the only reason Microsoft has to worry about it is that they are very unpopular with some government agencies right now.
Microsoft software (XP) has an option to buy music from a Microsoft Site, and it uses a Microsoft product (IE) to connect to that site...this is bad, evil, monopolistic.
Apple software (iTunes) has an option to buy music from an Apple site ("Music Store"), and it uses an Apple software (iTunes) to connect, and not my default browser (IE)
This is different how?
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
I'm assuming they don't use that default browser launcher api call and instead hardcode a call to IE.
[alk]
doesn't that annoying little windows update tool that lives in the systray and pester the crap out of you work outside of the browser? How windows update is accessed is a moot point anyway given that your average user never uses it.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Actually, in a sense I am being forced to. You see, the software I use is only available under Windows (a lot of CAD software and what not). Microsoft's monopoly position has driven the market into a situation where software vendors much support Windows in order to get users and users must use Wnidows in order to get software. Now, all of -my company's- software is written cross platform with wxWindows because it is a no-brainer -- MFC? wxWindows?
But the simple fact is, if I want to make a living, I have to use and support Windows. You could argue that well, just have an unsuccessful business and live poor. You'd be right. I could just live poor.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Do the RIAA and MPAA understand that MS wants to become the middle-man? Whoever controls the keys to DRM would effectively be the funnel through which all protected content must flow. Witness XBox and other consoles business models. I suspect these two organizations are aware of this, but haven't got the technical ability to produce an alternative. At least they're running with Apple on the music side - probably find them less threatening than MS. I suppose this is slightly off-topic :-)
If you don't like MS's products DON'T USE THEM. No one is forcing you.
If you had RTFA, you would have noticed that yes, Microsoft is indeed forcing you to use their software when you use the Shop For Music feature (whatever the fook "Shop For Music" is...I'll be damned if I ever click on "Shop For X" links that come preinstalled in my web browsers or Microsoft OS'es).
The deal with forcing them to allow OEMs to install software that they believe users want (like Moz with popup killing before the recent SP) is because they were using that market share to squeeze out competition - this is called 'ABUSE OF A MONOPOLY' and so they lost the case.
If you want to stop a monopoly abuser, you simply can't do it by persuading people to shop elsewhere: that's why there are laws for this.
You're just naive and I'm tired of hearing this shit.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
> practically everthing on a Mac is proprietary Apple software
> why shouldn't someone be able to force me to write a program in such away
Because neither Apple nor YOU are monopolies.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
First off, Apple does not hold over 90% of the desktop market. If it wants to be propriatary it isn't killing competition. When MS does it however, they manage to lock out other companies from the 90+% of the market that they are targeting. The fact of the matter is this, if MS continues to use no-complient HTML in their browser and also continues to forces the use their IE browser in windows, then people can't choose to use linux/free BSD/Mac OS unless they use a MS based browser (which they don't always keep updated). "Why?", you ask, because if 90% of the people use one OS with one browser, then many sites will be written to comply to that non-complient code and you get the errors that we see today: "This Page Requires I.E. 6.0 to view." Then you no longer base your choice on preference, but on the ability of the other browsers to function (since the DMCA causes problems with trying to emulate functionality).
And that is why it is bad for MS to be allowed to force their Browser upon their Windows XP.
I could be wrong however.
Don't use windows media player? There were lots of other choices out there, last time I checked.
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein
No one is forcing you.
Actually, yes they are. Numerous companies require the use of Windows. Many companies have legacy programs that run on x86 under Windows (or DOS) which are not easily or affordably moved to other platforms.
If your product is viable it will sell just as well on Apple...or...*gasp* an open source platform.
Read as -- if you have a monopoly on your market and can force your customers to bend to your whim then you can do whatever the hell you want. Otherwise you're going to kiss your ass goodbye if you move off of the platform that >90% of the world uses.
What's next? Coke is going to sue Pepsi for not allowing them to store their beverages in Pepsi equipment? GM is going to sue ford for not having standard brakes?
Neither Pepsi nor Ford have a monopoly in their markets. Microsoft does.
For some reason in the realm of software both consumers and developers think they are entitled to whatever they want.
Yeah, I never would've thought that changing my default web browser might actually mean that. How foolish of me! I mean, I actually dared to use a product that competes with Microsoft -- clearly Microsoft shouldn't allow me to do that. I'm surprised they haven't had my systems format themselves too.
No other market works that way.
Damn right. I mean, it's absurd to think that you can buy your own phone and use it. Simply rent this nice rotary dial phone from AT&T for a mere $6/mo. If you use another phone, we won't guarantee that you'll be able to place all of your calls, or that it'll work all the time. After all, it's our network and you'll just have to do things our way. If you don't like that, feel free to use something other than the telephone system. The US Postal Service is happy to deliver.
By refusing to stop using Microsoft products and just suing them...they prolong microsoft.
And some people find that they just happen to like using MS OS's because they just happen to like the software available on them. That doesn't mean they like everything else MS produces. Why does using one mean you have to use the other? Particularly when there are alleged interfaces for not doing so?
It's called playing fair. MS hasn't been doing it for well over a decade, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying to make them do so.
..I'd like Microsoft to have to admit to wrongdoing when they stop doing something wrong.
This "We didn't do it, and we promise to never do it again" shit is getting old.
~Philly
If you do this, *please* make sure to e-mail the maintainers of the website. Tell them you use Mozilla, and what you had to do -- and whether or not their site actually *does* work with standards.
Otherwise, the fake user agent string just continues to tell them "everyone uses IE anyway, so we're doing the right thing by ignoring those losers".
Mac users have options, and unlike IE, Mac browsers actually follow standards.
Your plugins for Excel example is off the point. When it comes to MS forcing its browser on users, the problem is that they are trying to defeat and close open standards. The WWW was never supposed to require any platform. It is supposed to be an Open Standard. Everytime some lazy coder caters to the anti-standard functions of MS tech, the universality of the web shrinks. If MS actually followed web standards, browser detection could be a thing of the past. They continue to require developers to cater to their crap. Through their quirks they've usurped the universal, open nature of the web and mad significant portions of it closed to anyone not choosing their crap platform.
MS should have to change to adapt to the world, not the world adapt to MS. Picture a four-lane highway. Some Canyonero driver is straddling the line, forcing traffic to stay behind it. The road was built for two lanes of traffic going in each direction. A standard was established, but one driver, just because he can, keeps it from working as designed. Shouldn't the cops get that driver off the road?
The potato it is uninformed.
"You won't know where applications end and the operating system begins." Ick!
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
It's not the fact that they're a monopoly - it's a remedy for them previously ABUSING their monopoly position. Apple doesn't have a monopoly position to abuse.
It's like ruling that a burglar is not allowed to carry a crowbar in the street and the burglar's riposte being "I should be allowed to carry whatever I want". Well, ordinarily you can, but you broke the law and this is the remedy to prevent you doing it again.
For all you that think MS coders are idiots, no, they're not. Look, from a programming standpoint, wouldn't you rather be calling an API from a controller environment that you *know* works that hoping a third-party library works the way it's "supposed to"? You'd better. One might nearly rightly complain I'm showing some of the "ferocious Not Invented Here complex", but there's some reasoning behind the madness. If you want your program to work right, you use what is, in your opinion, the most reliable means to make that happen.
But before you rightfully flame me out of existence, what MS has to understand is that they're not in a position to "do things right" here. There are cultural reasons -- not programming/techincal ones -- that they have to keep in mind. They've been, with reason, found to have leveraged their vast dominance over the desktop OS market into the Internet browser market as well. That's unfair. MS *has* to open up their apps to allow a user's choice or they're, once again, arguably illegally abusing monopoly status.
The lesson here, and it's what most everyone not calling MS hackers a bunch of idiots (which they obviously aren't. I've never seen a better set of ideas come from one company -- at least before they're run though the MS Profit Maximization Machine, (c) 198x) is arguing, whether they know it or not: These cultural lessons aren't being taught to their programmers. Here, MS is culpable, and the people responsible should be held accountable.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
I have a Sprint cell phone and If I want to use it, I must subscribe to Sprint cellular service, that does not imply Sprint has a monopoly on cell phones and cell service.
Apple does not have anything close to a monopoly with online music sales. Popularity is not directly related to monopoly. You are free to use any online music store you want and nothing currently prevents that. If Apple had exclusive rights with the RIAA and was the only provider of online music I might agree with you.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I don't see why the courts spend all this time on these minor MS issues while ignoring the very abuses that permit microsoft to maintain it's illegal monopoly. The WIN32 API's Intellectual Property protections prevent competitors from making compatible products thereby reducing the choice that software producers have in platforms to support. If MS were ordered by the courts to release the WIN32 API to the ISO or some other similar organization for administration as a world standard (similar to POSIX...) it would foster proper competition between operating systems as they would all be able to support the defacto standard API that most commercial apps are written for. Just my $0.02
An eye for an eye... leaves the whole world blind.
Mac users have options, and unlike IE, Mac browsers actually follow standards.
That's not true. IE fully supports XHTML 1.0 in its various guises, CSS1 and DOM level 1. Every browser vendor without exception introduce their own enhancements to the W3C peanut gallery recommendations. If you want to blame someone, blame the web developers who know no better than use IE's proprietory APIs and extensions.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
People are making a big deal over THIS!?!?!?!?! If you are so stupid that the only way to find music for sale online is by following this link then you need to be banned for computers. I had to hunt high and low before I found this very obscure link. If you are so fucking upset that your preferred browser doesnt load this stupid link, you need to step away from the computer and get a life. Is this the best FUD you can come up with against Microsoft these days? this isn't a flame....this is the motherfucking truth.
Am I the only one who has never had a single problem with IE?
It has a decent feature set, it renders fairly complex sites very quickly and it supports the largest range of web pages.
My only major greivence with it is the ease at which you can mistakenly install an Active X control (which is being addressed with XP service pack 2). Security flaws aren't even a big deal because I do windows updates weekly. Not to mention Microsoft is going to offer automatic windows updates in the near future.
To be quite honest with you, the biggest shortcoming with IE is that it hasn't been fully developed as far as integration with Windows. So much more than the file system and web pages could benifit from the whole browser paradigm (for example, enhanced FTP support), but explorer and IE have a sense of disconnectedness that makes me open a new instance of IE even when I am at a windows explorer window and that bothers me.
http://brandonbloom.name