Slashdot Mirror
EU Rejects Microsoft Settlement Proposal
Karl Cocknozzle writes "European Union antitrust officials have dismissed as insufficient Microsoft's offer to settle their most recent antitrust problem in Europe. Spokespeople for the European Commission and Microsoft declined to comment on a report in today's Financial Times that Microsoft had offered to include rival media player software from Apple and Real Networks on a CD-ROM packaged with personal computers to help resolve the case. Previously, the EU had demanded that Microsoft either unbundle Windows Media Player, or also bundle rival media players with Windows. It appears that Microsoft might get more than a slap on the wrist this time around."
I hope the EU also forces Apple to bundle Real with MacOSX as well...
It appears that Microsoft might get more than a slap on the wrist this time around.
It's got to. If the risk of breaking the law and getting caught is not substantially worse than the negative consequences of acting lawfully, then rationally, there is no reason to follow the law. That is what MS has done for years. And if the trend continues, they would be smart to continue doing just that.
I beleive the EU may have this in mind as part of the reasoning for sticking it to them a little harder this time.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
There is some logic in the US going easy on Microsoft. They aren't nearly as impartial. Microsoft contribute greatly to the US economy, providing jobs, and significant cash/balace of trade inflows.
The EU is impartial, as they doen't receive similar benefits. The end result will be closer to what the US result should have been, but wasn't, unless Massachusetts prevails.
We wouldn't have as many virus/worm/security problems if they did...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Real is much much worse than even Microsoft. They resembly hackers more than a real software company, and virtualy take over machines they are installed on. Lets get some real competition based upon standards, like MPG, HTML, and not the crap that all tech companies put out that changes ever 3 months. This is the 90's failed way of doing things, build roads, not silicon valley failure.
Will they stick to the punishment. So many things don't these days. I caused a car accident totally not only my car but the other guys car out. It was ugly and obviously totaled. I got a ticket but I ended up with no opints and $145 USD in fines. That's it. My car was totally covered so I just got a new one and went on my merry way. Kids in schools are not even taught punishment anymore. They are taught to have their energy redirected. Will they be able to hold to a punishment??? I hope so but have major doubts.
Evolution or ID?
I can understand where Bill Gates et. al. are coming from. Most people who use Windows are not very proficient at using various media players. They want to be able to click on a link and automatically have it work AND have it be consistent. Out-of-the-box functionality is what Microsoft is trying to achieve, especially for all of the regular users out there.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, those who need Real/QT can just download it from their respective sites.
I think where Microsoft should really have been hit hard was with the whole IE/Netscape saga. With that, it wasn't simply a matter of not packaging Netscape with Windows, it was a matter of Microsoft's systematic attempt to destroy Netscape as a rival browser.
Ah well, just my 2 cents. And yes, I use Windows at work, but I'm a *BSD guy everywhere else.
Maybe is microsoft is banned to sell their software to OEM vendors at preferential prices, so as not to give big PC vendors a reason to force people to buy windows PCs, we could atlast have a free market?
Hostes alienigieni me abduxerunt. Qui annus est?
Yeah... just like giving away versions of their products to schools is some sort of punishment!
That's like these class action lawsuits (the one against monitor manufacturers for selling 15.9 inch "17 inch" monitors comes to mind) where you get a coupon for some insanely small amount ($5) off of a new monitor! Jesus... that's not a penalty! Give me cash! Make Microsoft pay reparations! Where's the BEEF?
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
In all honesty, I don't think its the government's responsability to ensure stupid users have XYZ Media Player on their computers. Yes MS is huge, and yes they virtually have a monopoly on the PC market, but bundling Netscape/Real/etc with Microsoft's Operating Systems makes no logical sense.
The aim at a suit like this should be to punish MS for strong-arming manufacturers like Dell, Gateway, etc into using MS software over the competition. Its the manufacturers responsability to bundle third party software like those above (yeah, Netscape is dead, yada yada), not Microsoft's.
"YOU AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE
PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL
OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR
PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND."
THAT is in the licensing agreement of Windows. Just for fun and to create a lot of headaches, go to your nearest retailer and tell them to take $200.00 off of the price of a computer you want and to delete windows from the hard drive because you do not agree with the terms of the license. They will jump up and down and say lots of funny things. They will tell you that "we cannot do that". Tell them that they are bound by the license agreement the same as you. Then after they are finished throwing their pop-eyed double-barrelled hissy fit, tell them that you decided that you can spend your $2K elsewhere and that they just lost a sale! It's fun, try it sometime.
I am tired of hearing that "Media Player is not a part of Windows." Does anybody still have their Windows 3.1 disks? Media player is there. Internet Explorer is not.
It's about how tightly they are integrated into the OS. Come on, they can bundle all the software they want. You can't tell them what to put in their own product. However, the thing that bothers me is that they integrate Internet Explorer, Media Player, Outlook, and all their other crap into Windows and make it hard for other programs to achive the same level of integration. For example, in Windows XP Media Player is integrated into IE. Outlook is integrated into the user account. Outlook is speciallized for hotmail.
I get the distinct impression the EU is out to make an example of them and fine them ridiculously.
Yes, you are probably right. The EU probably wants to make some kind of a political statement to corporate America, and show that *they* won't be bribed.
But, Microsoft probably deserves to be smacked anyway, they got away with it once, and I'd be rather disappointed to see them get away with it again.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Should they not then be forced to also include alla other media players so that they do not five preference to just a few of the competitors - that would not be fair to Microsoft at all since there are alot of other players for many medias.
The only fair thing would be to force Microsoft to not bundle the player with the OS - and that is just what EU wants.
Just saying it like it are.
Personally, what I would really like to see this time around is them forcing MS to open up their file formats. If there is one thing I see them using to maintain their monopoly in Office software is the fact the competitors need to reverse engineer the file formats to even begin to compete. The reverse engineering is not perfect, therefore there are problems. If they totally documented .doc (and the new XML format), and are not allowed to "patent" (or copyright or whatever) it, that would open up the Office software industry quite a bit and allow everyone to compete on functionality and features, rather than who has the keys to make files flow seemlessly between users. This clearly goes to the heart of the effects of having a monopoly.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
If I was running Microsoft, I'd just pull out of Europe.
I am totally against ethically dubious practices to achieve a monopoly. But I don't consider "bundling" anti competitive behavior.
This is just another example of the EU over regulating.
It's one thing to regulate coercion, theft, bribery, blackmail or other things that are (in my opinion) actual crimes. To cross the line into listening to companies when they whine about "anti-competitive behavior" that really isn't unfair is ridiculous. Why aren't they suing BMW for including radios in their automobiles?? After all, it is a "value added" additional component. It's not a car. Why aren't aftermarket car stereo manufacturers banding together to petition the EU to sue BMW??? Why?? Because it wouldn't make sense.
I don't mean to start a flame war, but isn't this Microsoft Monopoly crap getting a little old? Slashdot tends to foam at the mouth every time we hear about something like this, but isn't it time we focus our energy into producing a better product??? There are countless examples (especially in the computer industry) of companies that seemed like monopolies (IBM for example) that were devastated overnight when a superior idea entered the market place. True innovation would render all of this legal schmegal bullshit a total waste of time.
Let's spend our energy on things that will actually make a difference.
~foooo
>> I'd still love to see Windows stripped of all the bundled crap and truly customizable on set-up, like Linux.
What I don't understand is that if you want it to be just like Linux, then why not just run Linux?
I say screw it. Whats happened happened. If Microsoft is bad they will fail all by themselves. They don't need the rule of laws help.
/. users, Microsoft has in fact played their cards right in a lot of ways. It is not random chance that they're one of the largest, most powerful companies on the planet. On the contrary, it's very deliberate. I'd suggest doing some reading on the things they've done in the past. There's a lot of history in that company and many, many examples of behavior that a) was successful, and b) probably could have been curbed by a slightly less wimpy legal system.
Actually, they do need laws to help, because they have amassed a disproportionately large amount of power and without laws they will literally be able to do whatever they choose. This isn't a question of being a Microsoft fan or not, this is a question of a single company having enormous power and reach, and without laws that company can do (and has already done, even with laws, because they are always able to manipulate the circumstances in their favor) things that are unfair to other companies.
I'm no Microsoft fan either, but I stand in complete awe of their ability to succeed, regardless of the circumstances. Despite doing many things "wrong" according to
This is the crux of it... currently the OEM restrictions are pure evil. The big one is the dual-boot clause: no non-Microsoft OS to dual boot with a Microsoft OS. So if you want to offer a version of Windows (and they all do), you can't offer Linux or *BSD (or previously, Be) on the same box.
This was the issue that the US govt wimped out on badly, and I'm hoping the EU will stand firm.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Well, the inclusion of competitors products was Microsoft's idea for settlement. The government should be trying to force Microsoft to competitors in the application space the same access to OS-level APIs as their own developers receive. I think the licensing is important too, but until there is a level playing field to develop products to the same platform (I believe having access to a restriced API means it's not the same platform) it won't change much to let OEMs install competing products. There still won't be room to compete on technical merit, letting the customers decide.
So, now M$ has claimed that their Media player is an intregral part of windows and windows would be "substandard" without it?
Interesting argument, much akin to the argument they used about IE.
Now, let's ask a hypothetical question. If this were about automobiles, and the question was about whether or not the manufacturer could force a person to use ONLY the built-in radio what would be the argument?
"Well, judge, if we had to remove the radio, we would also have to remove all the stuff it uses, like the wiring, the alternator and the battery, so the car wouldn't run. So, you see, the radio is an integral part of the car and forcing us to remove it and letting people use someone else's radio would cripple the car."
Absurd? Well, that's exactly what they said about their browser and are now saying about the media player.
Because I have software that runs under Windows. Some of it is several years old and ran under 3.1 or win 95, but I still need an OS to run this legacy stuff on.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is utterly ridiculous. Microsoft got where they were because of the law. If they can ignore the law now, why shouldn't I? Without law, let's see... someone could go raid their campuses, steal their hardware, take their softwareware, kill their employees, and destroy them with a physical assault. But no: there is law, and law enforcement, to prohibit this, and allow Microsoft and other companies to flourish.
There is other law, and law enforcement, to prevent Microsoft (and other companies) from doing bad things, too. That's we're seeing right now, and for the most part, it's unfortunately weak.
Some laws are stupid, and need changed (DMCA, USA PATRIOT, etc), but for the most part, society is the scale, and law is the balance. Without law, there would be no society, and without good law, and enforcement of the law, the balance will tip.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I hate to say it, but the Europeans are being too strict with Microsoft in this case, and it is hard to imagine how this remedy makes things easier for the average consumer. They are forcing options on a group of people who are probably already overwhelmed by the technology itself.
While Windows Media player is pure evil forged on a workstation powered by souls of the damned that is used at the peril of one's immortal soul and all that, it is hard to imagine why someone would need 7 different media players on their computer. Joe Average is going to want to play mp3s and videos on his PC, not spend time trying to understand the distinctions between WMA, RMA, MOV, etc.
It just doesn't seem right that choice should be forced on people. If Microsoft wants Windows to default to Windows Media when someone wants to play a CD, I do not understand what the problem is. They built the product, they understand how it works, and they have to field the support calls when someone wants to know why something doesn't work right. If somebody doesn't like it, they can install another player or turn to Linux just as easily.
M
Microsoft may bundle the media player to gain control, but aren't they also satisfying customer demand? Wouldn't Joe User like to play mp3s and movies out-of-the-box? Isn't bundling more of a convenience in this case?
It may be 'uncompetetive', but surely if RealPlayer or Quicktime were SIGNIFICANTLY better alternatives, and advertised as such, people would voluntarily switch media players. Why do you think iTunes is doing so well?
If anything they should be forced include an uninstaller with WMP.
And why should iTunes or RealPlayer be candidates for bundling? Is swapping one proprietary format for another accomplishing anything?
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
This is because Microsoft knows that Real and Netscape are not competitors of WMP; Real Player sucks and, well, what's to say about Netscape... But it does make for good press, after all, the ignorant press guys will just parrot Bill Gates saying "look, M$ has agreed to include competitors software" totally oblivious that Microsoft no longer cares about Real and Netscape, two technologies that Billy-Boy has already wiped.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
BMW is not a monopoly, de facto or otherwise.
BMW is not armtiwsting its distributors to only sell BMW (correction, they were, that was declared illegal in the EU).
How do you call this:" if you don't install my media player you can't bundle Windows with your PCs". Coercion, blackmail come to my mind. Add a monopolistic situation and frankly I don;t know from which planet you are coming from (are you some kind of hyper monopolistic Klingon or what?).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In Windows 3.1, there was no Windows Media format, and there certainly was no DRM. The player isn't the problem, it is Microsoft's ability to leverage their marketshare to push out open multimedia formats in favor of their own.
Now you can argue that there will always be alternatives, but the company with the huge advantage in the Operating System marketshare should not be able to use that monopoly power to kill competition in other areas such as multimedia. Remember, it isn't illegal to be a monopoly, it is illegal to abuse that monopoly power. Which Microsoft has done, and continues to do.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
And support PC manufacturers that do not bundle MS Windows by default ( Shuttle comes to mind here, but there are many others).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I don't really think it matters which products they include. It's a stupid settlement because it doesn't address the problem: Microsoft applications have access to a different platform than similar applications by published by competitors. As long as that is true, than Microsoft is guilty of abusing their monopoly position.
Which kind of bothers me.
The last thing I would like to see is a prolonged political/economical stand-off between the EU and USA.
The present silliness with the freedom fries madness over there and general uninformed anti-American crap over here is already enough.
The owls are not what they seem
Bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP (and having it installed as the default media app.) removes any need the typical consumer might have to investigate other options. This is why the EU is protesting M$'s solution. Unless Real is installed along with WMP, the average consumer won't use Real or WinAmp, thereby stiffling competition.
Microsoft is sitting atop tens of billions of $ that isn't is no longer in circulation.
Really, I think the U.S. going easy on Gates is simply our corrupt rich leaders scratching the back of another rick man. I really don't see how it could be taken any other way.
You do realize that the Republican party, before large corporate interests took over, was very supportive of anti-trust law. Some of the most well thought of Republicans were big supporters.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I don't want it to be just like linux, that is what linux is for. What I want, is more freedom to customize and configure Windows. I want Windows to be an OS that is flexible enough to allow me to choose whatever browser, email client, media player I want, not what Bill thinks I need.
I think including Windows Media Player has this effect. I think for the pruposes of these trials, bundling means to make the app a part of the OS. It means WMP can't be removed, you will always have it on your system, even if you expressly don't want it. And also that WMP has more access to the system than competing products, so it appears to work better. So even the people who do look at alternatives get the impression that the Microsoft tools are just better anyways.
Providing alternatives to the default applications is one thing; moronic consumers who know nothing about computers and do not bother learning about their alternatives is quite another.
You cannot legislate the stupid out of the masses.
Linux and Windows aren't as different as you think they are. Things like Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player have become part of the operating system? Why? It's good for developers. Need to view a HTML or XML based helpfile? Just use the built in Windows functions.
Need to play a mp3, wav, mpeg, or other multi media file? You could include Quicktime and pay Apple a distributor fee, or you can use Windows Media player libraries which got installed when Windows was installed.
Many of the building blocks of these applications are there for developers to take advantage of. The DLLs get large because Microsoft dictates that they must remain backwards compatible, so that an application coded for dllhell.dll version 1 will still work for dllhell.dll version 6 without recompiling. This is one thing Windows does have that Linux doesn't. Since most of Linux is open source and Windows and applications aren't though, both methods are acceptable for the platform.
What gets Microsoft in trouble isn't bundling this software with the operating system. This software IS the operating system now. What gets them in trouble is that Microsoft can and does use their dominance to push competition out of the market, killing off Netscape, and attempting to push Apple, Real, and others out of the market. They could maybe get away with leaving the dlls in there, but leaving the UI components of Media Player out.
Glad that the EU sees that including a supplemental CD with Windows isn't enough. If it isn't pre-installed, it can't compete with Media Player. If it is pre installed, it still can't compete with Media Player because Media Player will be the player handling the file extensions. The last thing MS wants to do is add a "Select your preferred player application" to the Windows First Boot, but that's the only solution I can come up with right now.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Apple has no monopoly, nor has she ever abused a monopoly to enter a market in which she had no presence. The point is not that this is Microsoft, nor that this is a monopoly, the point is dat Microsoft has to play in a level playing field and it does not do that, that is a abuse of influence and that is the reason why the government needs to correct this infraction.
... in the long run I think it would save Microsoft from oblivion, but that's just me.
The best way, if anyone would ask me, is to split Microsoft up in to a MS Media, a MS Windows, and a MS Applications. But who am I to say?
What I cannot create, I do not understand
At least according to American (and apparently European) courts. Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly.
On a side note. When a monopoly is leveraged it starts affecting other markets, not just the one it currently occupies. Revenues from the Microsoft OS let them loose money everywhere else to stifle competition. Which is why hinging on single issues with a monopoly won't have a detrimental affect to it's continued status as such.
What the chairman of Microsoft believes or doesn't is irrelevant, as the actions of the corporation as a whole are in question.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
I at the time I post this no submission has touched the EULA / DRM issue as discussed on /.
rather non-controversially.
:).
I did not find a hint when RTFAing as well.
However, some issues are touched here.
I wonder wether the EU authorities in charge really see all the intricacies, can hardly believe so but still have hope that they will take care of some freedom for the masses that at the time being have no chance to even think of installing an alternative OS on an x86 box (just had a date with a female colleague from the therapeutic branch who has a hard time to identify a link in an e-mail
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I agree. There's starting to be some momentum towards a Linux Desktop, with companies such as IBM and Novell getting involved. It will take a few more years until Linux is really a viable option for a large number of users, but when it is what Microsoft has done over the years will come back to bite them in the ass.
The playing field for OSes should be fair. Every company that shuts down every time there is a major virus outbreak will probably jump at the chance to use a non-Microsoft OS, once there's a viable, widely used alternative. If Microsoft wants to continue to leverage their dominance to put other vendors at a significant disadvantage, I'm sure those vendors would jump at the opportunity to write apps for a major non-Microsoft platform.
What goes around comes around, and Microsoft is due.
True, it isn't government's job to make sure every media player is available on the desktop, but it is government's responsibility to prevent a monopoly from putting competitors out of business.
Consider M$ as something like a cable company. They provide the platform which their customers can use to get whatever they want. Since most cable companies can't produce enough product to fill all the bandwidth, they resell content from other sources. That way, everybody wins. (Some more than others, but at least they stay in business)
I think it would be interesting if M$ were required to provide some number of competitor's products in each category. They could lease products from other vendors and provide them on the Windows platform. This would be similar to how the Bell companies had to provide equal access to their competitors. I would hope there was also some way to prevent M$ from building their own version of the software and put the original companies out of business. At least if they were required to provide the top "N" versions, they could only put the weakest companies out of business.
I also don't think making Windows configurable would be much of a help. Most user's don't configure their machines, they just run with whatever comes out of the box.
Of course, the optimum solution is to define what exactly is an operating system, and require Microsoft to provide that as a single unit. That was the original argument from the browser wars. If Microsoft is allowed to define what should go into "core windows", it will continue to grow and eventually put most other companies out of business.
The problem people have with it are the proprietary media types that Microsoft created (asf, asx, wma) for Windows Media Player 7 and up. I don't think there would be an objection if those filetypes didn't exist.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Seriously though, the problem is not the bundling of Windows - most non-geek people actually want it bundled for convenience. Rather, it is the clause in Microsoft's OEM agreements that says "if you want to ship any PCs with Windows at all, you must include an OS with *all* of your PCs".
That's why Dell are shipping their new 'OS free' nSeries with FreeDOS included in the box (but not installed) - it's a clever sidestepping of their contract with MS. Of course MS should never be allowed put this sort of clause into an OEM contract in the first place.
Shuttle can do what they do only because they don't sell PCs with Windows at all.
"Now, I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I really don't see what the big deal is with Windows Media Player."
Here's a question for you. Why does Microsoft get to determine what comes with a Dell computer? Think about that for a second. Microsoft wants to "improve Windows" for the "consumer", or so the argument goes. I don't see things that way. Imagine a world for a moment where Windows has a standard API interface, disk formats, and drivers, and Dell can put any text editor, any browser, any media player, anything they think the market will stand on top of that. HP does this too, so does IBM. Then when you go to your store to buy a computer, there is choice and it's no longer hardware based, it's OS based.
Once you can differentiate between HP, Dell, IBM, etc, someone can come along and make a new OS, market it. This creates choice, opens up the market.
I really think the simplist solution to the Windows problem is to let a few hardware companies have a perpetual license to the Windows XP source code (as it exists today) that can not be taken away (unless they open source it, or something equally as drastic), give them the right to publish any and all APIs in that source, give them the right to change that source any way they choose, give them the right to set up a standards commity outside of MS, and once the source reaches some magic number of changes (80-95%) from the original licensed source, they code becomes the property of that company and they stop paying MS per copy. Monolopy gone, problem solved.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I hear people complaining that Netscape and other products died because of the free market. Well they are partially right. Netscape was a pay for product. Along comes Microsoft and releases a free product that at the time was inferior to Netscape (still is IMHO) and gives it away free and then bundles it with their OS.
This may be fine for some people until Microsoft large feet step on you. Stacker was a good example, Stacker was making money hand over fist until MS released "their" version as a part of DOS. Stacker was no longer needed and sales dropped dramatically. Turns out that MS used Stackers own code and were too lazy to even change part of it to keep Stacker from finding out. Thanks to its deep pockets MS dodged the bullet and paid them off...Stacker died.
If you ran a bakery and I opened one next to you and gave everything away for free you would pitch a fit and try to have me closed down. If I copied your best seller by letting you do the ground work and then gave it away for free you would sue me. The customers could care less they get it for free but when your money is on the line it is a different story.
I hope the EU sticks to its guns. MS has had this coming for a while and it is nice to see that they can't buy their way out of every problem they make.
Not convinced
IANAD (I am not a developer) but surely API's for things like the interface by which Internet Explorer passes webpage sounds to Media Player are only of use if you wish to design, from the ground up, a replacement for WMP
The truth is that the major "other" applications are pre-existing cross-platform apps (RealPlayer, Quicktime) and applications which don't handle the wide scope of formats used by WMP (iTunes, Musicmatch, Winamp)
My point is that to the developers of crossplatform apps or those for a limited range of file-types, the underlying API will not be as much a revelation as a small convenience, Crossplatform apps don't probably want large chunks of Win32 API to reimplement on their other platforms and limited-scope players cant handle everything the API passes anyway
A further concern is that Microsoft might NDA the API's in a fashion that makes the developers who see them incapable of working on Opensource projects or projects for other Operating Systems.
Ergo, my opinion, better to give the customer and the OEM builder freedom of choice for now and let the market develop from there. There are many mature Media Players already, the problem they face is having to be chosen by the end-user. Better API access won't change that.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Part of me does not like the evil microsoft corporation. Then again another part of me thinks... It's their windows, its their media player, if other companies dont like that they include it in their OWN product, well screw them let them develop their own OS, gain market share off of that then bundle in whatever they want to. To me it just doesn't make sense that microsoft cannot/(should not?) be able to include, well, whatever the heck they want to include in their own products. I understand that its all antitrust bs and total market obliteration.... but screw it, people DONT have to get windows, they can get something else. bleh. -- No spellchecker on /., and I dont hcekc pleslnig
because Bill wants every desktop to be the same
I would suspect that many users(especially office people, like secretaries, temps, etc.) want the same thing. It can be a real pain if every machine were configured differently. Imagine if you had to spend time relearning where everything is every time you change jobs or even departments within your company. I thought(though I'm probably wrong) that Microsoft made their software for businesses originally, not the home user, and thus wanted to create a similar configuration on all machines. Call me naive or whatever(just don't call me late for dinner), but I think that concept is a good thing under those circumstances.
What?
Things like Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player have become part of the operating system? Why? It's good for developers. Need to view a HTML or XML based helpfile? Just use the built in Windows functions.
/etc/alternatives.
Plus, define a standard for the way that things are launched. If you want them to stay in library functions, publish the specs. Do you know how easy the Mozilla people could write a DLL for their HTML renderer? And have you seen Firefox lately? Dear God, it's so much faster than IE in rendering.
It's called an API. Microsoft is not publishing the API for the HTML DLL, and that's just crap. I can, of course, install Firefox on Windows, but Windows will still use the IE renderer anytime the DLL is called.
First we had IE.
Next we have Media Player.
Then Messenger.
Then Zipped folders. (Notice no one complained about that?)
C'mon! Who doesn't see a pattern here? MS just needs to open the damned API, and everyone would be happy.
The problem is that Microsoft is extending the idea of "operating system" to equate to "desktop". Everyone who uses Linux knows this is a pile of crap. Microsoft does not control a desktop environment. They control an operating system, and their control over the operating system has allowed them to slowly start to gain control over the desktop environment. And again, that's crap.
It already is. You can use whatever software you want. What you want is the ability to not install software you don't think you use. The problem is, you use it all the time. The same parts of the OS used to play video in Windows Media Player is used to play it in the beginning of games (those which haven't licensed Bink or used their own MPEG decoder anyway, and especially those which have used DirectMedia.) The HTML compositing and rendering system used in Internet Explorer is used to display the Help system in anything using Microsoft help, or CHM (compressed, archived HTML help) and configuration screens in many Unreal-engine games, among many others. Even mail is handled through services which have been present on Windows NT for some time.
The interfaces you know as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player are a relatively small piece of the puzzle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Then again you are misreading what I said.
Ask any historians what happens to Monopolies.
They die. A monopoly can only be sustained by force (ie, consumers or legal actions)
Even those that screw the consumer in the short run die. The only lasting monopolies are government run. (US Postal Service)
Microsoft is going to lose their monopoly. They can't keep the ball running eternally. It won't happen because the EU slaps a retarded fee on their backs (which will no doubt get passed on to the consumer).
The simple fact is, if their product sucks as bad as we all know it does it won't keep the consumer's interest. They are going to move on. It may seem like it is a slow process but it is picking up speed.
What some seem to miss is the fact that having a monopoly is not patently illegal. In order to take legal action the government must be able to prove that the company is screwing their customers by abusing their market position.
I personally don't feel that any of the unethical, standard hijacking things they've done qualify as monopoly abuse given the nature of the service they provide. (I say Microsoft should be able to control the software that is run on their system just like Coke can sue the pants off you if you put peps in their coolers)
That will be for the courts to decide but I don't really trust them these days. They seem more interested in punishing smart business moves. I've never felt that fines punished anyone but me. I highly doubt the execs at Microsoft are going to say, "We'll just take this one for the team. We deserve it." They'll get that money back one way or another. It won't be to my benefit.
clifgriffin > blog
"Bill wants every desktop to be the same and once you install Windows, there's a indefinite part of your computer that no longer belongs to you, as they have dictated and will continue to do so."
Yeah I suppose that's one interpretation. The other one is that there is basic functionality that is demanded of a computer, and Microsoft is trying to make that work as painlessly as possible. It's the type of thing you really start to understand when you try to make a single video file that will play on most machines. It's a pain in the ass. At least Microsoft gives you that default to work with. You'll pardon me if I'm not terribly impressed by phrases like "no longer belongs to you" and "as they have dictated". Microsoft is filling a need that nobody else (like Real or Quicktime) has been able to manage.
You really want to be afraid of WMP on Windows? Consider this: Microsoft provides a good format with a good player on the vast majority of machines. It becomes the de-facto format for playback. Microsoft decides it doesn't want to bother porting to Linux or Apple.
Can you really blame Microsoft for that? Well let's look at the facts: Serving video with only one format on the web is anything but painless. No bundling of a media player means people have to go find their own player and codecs etc. The result of that is chaos, and that's all we've had since the internet become a consumer good. The Open Source Community has had (and still has) plenty of time to do something about this, but gee, where's the grand unified wonderful open format and player?
There's a big ass opportunity here being missed. If Microsoft does gain that de-facto status, you can still fight. Make the Linux/Mac/Anything else player. Bundle the player with Mozilla. Make a version for Windows as well. Get people to start using it. (Look in DivX's direction for how to do that.)
Okay I'm out of steam so I'll wrap this up: I'm just sick and tired of all this whining about MS, and in the wrong places. Don't fault them for creating a product in demand and bundling it with Windows. It makes for a better machine, not a worse one. It's the monopoly side of it you watch for. Just remember that it's a market accepted de-facto monopoly, not a "MS has me by the balls and is squeezing" monopoly. That means that it can be fought. Stop copying what's already out there and innovate. Make a video player that has hotspot capability. Make a video player that with animated skins. Make a video player with an ActiveX wrapper and built in codec (no more VFW!) and make the licensing terms generous.
Do something besides predicting gloom and doom.
"Derp de derp."
This software IS the operating system now.
When it comes time to arguing legal cases and to leverage the desktop, sure.
IIRC, there'n nothing technically preventing MS from using Windows XP Embedded as a baseline for constructing a basic PC system. Then, uh, essential OS features, such as an HTML renderer and audio file decoders, could be added in a modular way (just as they are with Linux). Such a solution would probably result in more robust and maintainable code since gratuitous complicated ties between the OS proper and the applications would not be needed to support the illusion needed for courtrooms and for marketing new "OS" features.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
This means a lock in to one proprietary format, and locks out other formats.
The OSS comunity really hasent done much to help the file format argument ..
.. Oh well I want to be able to copy their movies and share them with everyone..
Yes we have lots of open formats that handle most everything.. Except what the Movie and Music distrobuters want.
If we want Movie Makers to release there movies in an open format so that we can play them then sorry we have to compromise and provide a open format that gives them the copy protection they want.
The only real argument against doing that is
The day the OSS comunity provides a open source protected format that is the day we can convice the lawmakers that we really want to support the copyrights of artists. Then maybe we can encourage small time independent artists to compete using our formats..
That's the problem, and that's why Windows is so inflexible. (Too) many things are built right into the OS.
This is the opposite of GNU/Linux systems, which are based on a philosophy of freedom of choice. I'd hazard that the Windows philosophy, too, is the exact opposite : limitation of the user's choice (which especially rankles when the stuff that's chosen for you is so bad).
Windows basically gives you the completely sanitized user experience, and the completely technical background, with no in between, and inadequate documentation. In this respect, it is similar to Unix :) Except of course, with Free Unix, the source is the documentation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's true, but there's no technical reason Gecko couldn't support the same HTML-based help format, and thus no technical reason a component installed with the Mozilla suite couldn't offer the same interface to other applications as the IE-based one, with all the attendant improvements in standards compliance, reliability and flexibility that would come with that.
The user interfaces may be only 1/10 of the issue, but that doesn't mean you couldn't replace the other 9/10 with something superior as well. Microsoft simply chooses to structure their OS and its included services in such a way that it's not easy, and to withhold information that would make it easy.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The problem is with each version of MS Windows comes a whole new set of applets that intrude on an existing market. Since MS gives them away for free the other players go out of business. This kills diversity: consumers who usually drive the market are shut out of the process and then MS moves on to dominate another market. With out any other forces at work M$FT would own the entire computer: the DOJ acting as a minor speed bump. M$FT would be in a position then to control all how you use your media and control who can sell it and who can buy it and dictate its onw profits. M$FT has managed to become both autocracy and parasite.
Now, maybe I am a little old (ok real old), but isn't Microsoft just completing the migration of the Windows UI into the OS?
First off, Microsoft has allowed themed UI since Windows 95. Which means they've been perfectly happy to give people control over the user interface. Seond off, they readily ignore their own UI anyway - see Windows Media Player.
Anyway, A web browser is not UI. It's an application that displays Web pages. It doesn't display controls, or anything else - just Web pages. It just parses HTML into a bitmap buffer, and Microsoft should have no a priori reason to have a preferred HTML renderer in the operating system.
They are not slowly gaining control of the desktop, they OWN the desktop.
No. They're slowly gaining control over it. It used to be they weren't the desktop. You had other Office apps, you had other email apps, etc. Slowly but surely, all of the applications that people used got usurped into Microsoft.
A "desktop environment" is all "productivity applications" - applications that make a computer a general workplace tool. Not something like a CAD program, or a video game - those are special purpose, and not everyone would use it. Microsoft never owned that - nor should they.
And, being as old as I am I remember when you had to do that, and they didn't work together, and I don't want it anymore either.
A broken implementation doesn't imply a broken idea. The idea is correct. The problem was lack of standards.
Let me transpose your idea into a completely similar idea...
"As a side note, I think most of the customers at Best Buy, OfficeMax, and other retail stores just want to buy a computer. They don't want to pick up a case, then a power supply, then a processor, then memory. And, being as old as I am, I remember when you had to do that."
Here's the thing. I can still buy a case, power supply, processor, and memory, and make them all work together, and I can go to Dell and just buy a computer, and trust them to do it for me. But everyone knows that tech support sucks, and so if you do it yourself, you've got a much better chance of knowing what went wrong, if you're careful. So there are reasons for just going to Dell, and there are reasons to not do it.
No one's saying "Microsoft, don't make a browser. And don't use an HTML rendering library." We're saying "Microsoft, start acting like the rest of the damned industry, and work together." Everyone else already makes standards-compliant parts (more or less).
That is why they were declared a monolopy!
Exactly. They are a monopoly. And that's what we're trying to fix.
All businesses lose there licence and would be in breach of contract
Don't be silly, there is no legal mechanism by which the license can be revoked. Even if there was the law could be changed. MS don't have the power over governments that say an oil company does. An oil company can cut of the oil, a government can cut of the indulgence that is copyright and MS are screwed. Remember Europe is their biggest market and one copy of Windows is enough to do all of Europe.
Y'know, some OSS group should donate a billion dollars of software (estimated retail value) to the EU, or the UN, or something. Just to prove a point. I know people who really admire Bill Gates for his 'generous donations'....
As I see it, even if M$ were forced to remove WMP from the install CD, it would be listed as a 'Critical update' when you went to Windows Update. I recently did a clean install of Windows and WMP 9.1 was included as a critical update. Anyone common user would automatically install it.
How does that really help the situation?
I don't see how anyone is punishing you. Even if MS is forced to unbundle WMP from Windows, you would still be able to download and install it yourself if you really like it.
What you don't realise is that by using WMP you are effectively giving Microsoft the "green light" to go ahead and install all manner of DRM libraries and tools - before you know it, you'll find that you can't play your MP3s or MPEG movies any longer - unless you pay a tax to Microsoft.
The fact is that up until now, we've all had reasonably fair use of DVDs, CDs & software that we've paid for because no-one's stopped us copying our own stuff to do what we like with it for our own private use.
Unfortunately, Microsoft, movie studios and record companies all want us to "rent" this material in future because there is no longer anything great for them to sell to us - musical innovation is pretty much dead, there's very few good movies worth buying these days and all that can be done with software has now just about been done.
Add to this the fact that there were quality reasons to upgrade from VHS video to DVD, vinyl to audio CD and floppy disk to data CD which meant a lot of us bought stuff again for those reasons. But now, the only way forward is miniaturisation - flash memory, etc - and we're all doing that anyway with MP3 and MPEG.
DRM technology is being pushed out because it "prevents piracy" and "protects our PCs from running bad software" but it is just about making a whole bunch of rich people a whole lot richer at the extent of our freedom.
Use Windows, it's your choice but please take a moment to stop and think about what that might ultimately mean to the personal freedoms of all of us.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.