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."
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
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.
I get the distinct impression the EU is out to make an example of them and fine them ridiculously.
I'm not a Microsoft fan boy, but it doesn't appear to me they are getting a good rap.
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.
clifgriffin > blog
" I hope the EU also forces Apple to bundle Real with MacOSX as well..."
Don't do that. No one should be forced to have Real on their system. Don't punish the users.
Evolution or ID?
i would make mr gates walk from normandy to rome giving out cd's with slackware to everyone he sees telling him how sorry he is and how much France can kick his ass...
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
Now, I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I really don't see what the big deal is with Windows Media Player. Like somebody pointed out (Monkeyboy Ballmer IIRC), Windows has shipped with a Media Player since Windows 3.1 at least, and nobody's complained about illegal bundling.
...
Of course, what they might be doing (although I haven't been able to find any reputable sources for this) is disallowing OEMs to pre-install, say, Quicktime and Realplayer on the systems they sell. If indeed they're doing this, that is (imnsho) abusing their monopoly, and they should be forced to allow OEMs and others to pre-install whatever software they want.
But to require them to bundle Quicktime/Realplayer/whatever with Windows? That seems wrong on so many levels
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
I would rename my OS windows xp software package. And then release a crappy stripped down good for nothing OS that had no built in functions. I mean, what the people need is a good copy of windows with no internet explorer, outlook express, media player, games (get rid of solitare), defrag (hey its a program they license), ftp, telnet, etc. Just break it up into little pieces, make it basically worthless without the big package, then charge 10X more for the same content. Of couse, I'm 100% evil..but thats besides the point. *disclaimer* ITS A JOKE!
I hope the EU also forces Apple to bundle Real with MacOSX as well...
The EU has not deemed that Apple has monopoly; Microsoft does.
Are you saying that it's more 'fair' that the same rules should apply to a minor competitor as to a monopoly actor?
Because it's certainly not fair if you feel monopolies are bad.
Thank you for contacting Microsoft Sales!
After processing your request, we have determined that your upgrade cost will be:
$12,000,000,000.42.
Thank you,
Microsoft Sales
The simple concept of why a monopoly is treated differently has left some brains in their virginal state.
Most be a calcium overdose....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
M.
--
http://incuso.altervista.org
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.
Apple has never strong-armed its vendors into bundling quicktime and forced them to drop competing products... Because Apple doesn't have any vendors selling OS X systems.
Apple is very friendly towards Real, and Real Player. A little less so since RealPlayer started playing quicktime on the PC (that pisses Apple off... a LOT), but they're still civil about it, and Apple knows that people want RealPlayer for OS X.
There was never any attempt to block the product from working with the OS (quite the contrary, we got lots of help making it work w/ the OS, and even got some time @ Macworld to show it off. I worked @ Real on the product) I don't think Apple has any kind of obligation to include the player, given their position in the market, vs. MS's
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Microsoft had offered to include rival media player software on a CD-ROM packaged with personal computers to help resolve the case.
Who decides which (presumably free) media players go on the CDROM then? Is it just RealPlayer and 1 or 2 others (the major ones) or can anybody get in, i.e. Mplayer and other lesser known media players? And surely Microsoft's own WMP would have stayed the one installed by default, effectively nulling the advantage of having other alternatives available on the CD.
No really, that was obviously a trick to fool the EU antitrust commision. I'm glad they saw through Microsoft's "good will" proposals, unlike their US counterparts.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Let's hope that Microsoft won't be able to buy its way out like it did in the US.
Seriously, I'd like to see Europe calm down Microsoft. Let's them compete on pure merits, and stop quashing competition. One can only hope that in a few years, you will be able to choose between different OS, without locking oneself out of a lot of content.
I know that some alternatives start to emerge, and that you can now play a lot of videos on Linux, but the Microsoft lockin is still very strong.
Europe slapping Microsoft could mean more money from investors in rivals, thus leading in acceleration of competition's offerings.
A good thing, IMO.
However, even if they are told to remove their media player, it will most likely be how you can "remove" MS Messenger. Hell, last time I reformated and uninstalled MS Messenger it didn't even delete the icon which as far as I can tell, is all it is supposed to do.
Windows comes installed with Notepad, so now Windows comes installed with Notepad, EditPlus and UltraEdit. (even though they are better than notepad) Windows comes installed with MS Paint so can I get Photoshop installed with Windows.
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.
I hate MS as much as the next guy because of their hideous record when it comes to competition and quality, but since when is bundling QT and RealPlayer seen as a solution to their monopoly? I mean, I want RealPlayer AND WMP both OFF my computer, and not be forced to suffer both of them!
A real solution would be to ship completely without the media player and any DLLs relating to it, and make people download it, or allow OEMs to install a competing player if they so wish. Same should be done for IE. I know that both are buried deep into the system, but it's their problem, not mine.
Additionally, they should be required to disclose their audio and video formats. If they are truly a part of the system, then this information is needed for interoperability. Let's hope we get open file formats, and not RealPlayer rubbish being forced down our throats in addition to WMP!
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?
It would only be temporary, anyway, as Real is actually a subscription. The player expires and you have to go through their crap to get the latest and greatest, which does for you all you ever needed, which was no doubt done adequately by their first release.
How about Ogg?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
if they remove win-media player there will certainly be alot less "wrist" "slapping" going on.
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.
... to control the future media distribution standard, and impose a 'Microsoft tax' similar to that they have on PCs today. Its importance to them cannot be overestimated, and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain its position. Robert X Cringely has a very interesting article on Microsoft's media strategy in his ongoing coverage of Burst.com's patent-infingement suit against MS/WMA.
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?
Why? Does Intel punish PC builders for producing AMD machines?
"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.
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.
Yes.
MB makers were stronghanded out of making Socket A motherboards.
While said in jest, it is true.
Unfortunately, I have little faith in the EU to actually successfully force the issue here. As one reader already commented, any restrictions imposed will almost surely never see light in the US.
Far be it from our own congressional leaders or regulators to take any inspiration from a EU success, but that is a separate tangent.
It is my opinion that Microsoft has the monopoly they have at the behest of the consumer market which continues to support their products with dollars or euros in this case. Dollars have always spoken louder than votes, and until a viable competitor arises any regulation/restrictions/bundling/unbundling current or future will be seen as nothing more than a minor set back for Microsoft, not a solution.
The recent success introducing Linux (or any other alternative) definitely suggests that such a thing is not the barrier, rather it is the mind set. It was "marketing", t-shirts and stupid stuff penguins. And it will take something similar, if more tangible to convince CEOs and CTOs that there is a viable alternative to windows. It is rather ironic that they complain with one handand then buy 100K in licenses with the other. It is the responsibility of the entrenched IT community to instigate change where such change is economically viable. This is not a principal issue, but an economic one and the ultimately, the best solution to the problem will win if presented correctly on a case by case basis.
Of course, this all circles back to my original point. Unless, the mind set of the consume is altered (ideally in the work place where I find most of the user trends are set), then and only then will the "monopoly" be broken. Any attempt to regulate/bundle/unbundle Windows and its products will fail so long as the dollar/euro votes continue to pour in.
Just my 2 cents.
Buy the computer, and then return it, because you don't agree with the EULA (that you couldn't even read).
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.
Choose with your wallets if you want to punish MS. It's not like aren't alternatives to everything they make.
In other words, I agree the ajiva's irony, assuming it was intended to be ironic.
Why aren't they suing BMW for including radios in their automobiles?
Probably because BMW don't have a virtual monopoly on the car market.
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.
I dunno, did it go away? Did they get any effective action against them? Or did they laugh and go about their day? Yeah, that was it. Plus, the OEMs that sell Beemers are allowed to change the radios. Fuckwit.
I'm reminded of Bill Hicks line when people complained about him going on about JFK...
"Come on man, it was a long time ago, just let it gom OK?"
"Long time ago, huh? OK, I'll leyt JFK go if you'll shut up about Jesus"
Or brilliant words to that effect ;-)
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Common people. Inform yourselves, read, google a bit more.
MS makes deals in which they forbid PC manufacturers to bundle any other software but MS's own.
THus if DEll, HP or another company want to distribute MS Windows *and* a non MS media player, MS will not sign a contract that would allow a manufacturer to do just that.
You may undertand Bill Gates, I also understand Jack the Ripper, and frankly I don't like my understanding of him.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
The OEMs would be free to ship with no operating system, but would probably want to ship *something*, so they may choose a Linux desktop. If Be were still around, this might have changed their fate, or perhaps Apple might choose to release OS X for x86.
A variant would be to prohibit site licenses or other volume discounts for Windows.
In exchange, Microsoft can "innovate" all they want, if that's truly what they think they're doing.
Exactly!
Unbundling stuff would just make it infinitely harder for people who don't know anything about computers to actually DO anything on their computer.
So Joe Schmoe has a fresh new version of Windows XP installed, and he wants to watch a movie that he got on CD from a friend at work. So he puts the CD in the drive, follows the instructions to run it that his friend gave him, and gets an error message saying that the file isn't recognized.
He goes to e-mail his friend, and - oh shit, Outlook isn't installed, so he can't do that. Well, that's okay, because he has a webmail account through Yahoo. Oops, that doesn't work either, no Internet Explorer?
Well, at least he can play Solitaire while he's waiting, right? Not anymore...
Removing features is NOT a solution! If you want to beat MS, concentrate on adding features to your software, not making them cripple theirs.
Which is secret APIs, codecs and file formats.
Open these up and Microsoft could bundle any damned thing they want and not be able to effectively leverage their monopoly status.
Bundling competing super secret (and often viral) formulas only compounds the issue, not relieve it.
Free standards means free competition.
KFG
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.
You clearly do not understand what a monopoly is and isn't. Don't feel bad, as neither does a substantial portion of the /. crowd.
:
This is absolutely nothing like your example with BMW. To correct your analogy, the Microsoft BMW would
1) Enforce strict legalities on BMW dealers that they are not allowed to switch out the radios. Doing so can lose them their rights to deal in BMW products.
2) Design their engine so that if you removed the radio & replaced it with another, the engine would no longer start.
3) If a 3rd-party radio manufacturer finds a way around point 2, include legalities with your car's "license" (owner's manual/lease papers) that replacing the radio, even if it works, nulls and voids any manufacturer's warranty on the car.
4) Since no radio manufacturer is going to produce radios for that line of BMW because of 1-3, perhaps an end-user will attempt that. Assuming they are intelligent enough to bypass point 2, and careless enough to ignore point 3, BMW would not release technical specifications for how the radio actually plugs into the car's wiring system. In fact, they would intentionally make the wiring as confusing as possible, so that you have little chance of creating a radio that works as well as the factory radio.
I don't mean to start a flame war either. I'm just tired of hearing poor analogies like these that only indicate a lack of understanding of what a monopoly actually is.
Finally, let me point out that most countries agree that monopolies are perfectly ok, as long as you don't illegally use your fortunate market standing to maintain your monopoly.
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.
That is one of the arguments of Real's ongoing suit against Microsoft (they sued 18 Dec 2003): "Other charges allege that Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players." - CNet News
BMW doesn't have a monopoly, that's where bundling becomes a bad thing because it extends a monopoly. For your example to make sense, it would need to be something along the lines of:
You own MobileCoffeeCo that makes in-car coffee makers. You sell your coffee makers in the after market. All of a sudden, BMW, which owns 95% of the world auto market (Bentley owns the other 5% and few people can afford one) decides they're including their own in car coffee maker in their cars. You're out of business. Eh, no harm done, people still have their coffee makers right? Yeah, you're out of business through a completely anti-competitive move, but it's not unfair according to your argument.
Now can you see where the *combination* of having a monopoly and employing bundling strategies is anti-competitive? It's leveraging that monopoly power that's illegal. Back in the real world, if BMW had a 5% market share and bundled coffee makers, you could still compete. However, if the other auto makers *colluded* with BMW to put you out of business by bundling, again it would be anti-competitive.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
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
Heh. Shuttle don't even bundle a CPU, RAM, or hard drive! (Note: I'm not complaining.)
On the other hand, nothing prevents you from removing iTunes or iPhoto, or even QuickTime from MacOS, on top of the obvious fact that Apple is not a monopoly and therefore inherently abides by different rules.
Good riddance! Unfortunately, I don't think microsoft would actually abandon the largest market in the world.
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.
That's funny, cause that was exactly the reason for US DoJ anti-trust case against microsoft: ms leveraged monopoly in one market (desktop OS) to gain monopoly in another (web browsers). It was web browsers then, it's media players now. Microsoft was found guilty, and, as a punishment, was required to primise not to do it again.
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.
Is BMW a monopoly? Are they trying to "cut off the air supply" to a competing radio manufacturer?
I don't mean to start a flame war, but isn't this Microsoft Monopoly crap getting a little old?
Yeah, cause we all know that if we just stop saying that then microsoft will not be a monopoly any more! I mean DoJ seems to think so...
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.
You mean like the way mozilla took over IE's market share as soon as it was released? Oh wait... Let me spell this out for you: you cannot compete with a monopolist on the basis of better products that compete in the same market. That is why we have the rules to restrict abuse of monopoly.
BTW, the only reason IBM lost the market power it had is that the market became (mostly) irrelevant. IBM still has monopoly in mainframes (which is what they were sued for), but mainframes are disappearing. It has absolutely nothing to do with building a better product.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
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.
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
Mac OS X 10.3 allows you to opt to not install iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iCal,... if you don't want to. This can be selected in the install screen of Mac OS X (use custom install). My mac at work has no i-stuff installed except iCal and iSync. And a mac is delivered without any OS installed (there is just one large empty partition). The box contains two CD sets: one disk image containing everything and regular install CD's.
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 hate Windows Messenger. I hate the damn sticky key feature. I hate most of the accessories. Now, WMP ain't so bad, but BSPlayer is what *I* need. Did I mention ActiveX? Damn, I learned to hate IE... but, of course, is needed to patch Windows. MSN explorer? You keep it!
But, of course, to uninstall some of those you need to sell your first born male child... and the others (hint: IE) are just plain uninstalable.
You know what? It's an operating system. Bane EVERYTHING that's not using and following open protocols. TCP/IP? open - leave it. Outlook Express that connects to hotmail? Proprietary - erase it. IE? kind of uses open protocols, but we know it's not following standards. Bane it, or force them to change it. Oh, they want proprietary stuff? Ok, no prob, but not in the OS I paid for.
And, BTW, a ssh client would be nice, not to mention the daemon... I mean server.
Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
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.
Indeed, if I was a US regulator, looking at Microsoft pulling out of the EU because it cannot abuse its monopoly there, I'd look into a way of really pissing them off here too - assuming that the growth of competition in the EU doesn't result in an undermining of Microsoft's monopoly all by itself.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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
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 whether you have an aftermarket or stock radio in your car has ZERO effect on the standard format for radio broadcasts. THAT is strictly regulated by the FCC (in the US). There is no such regulation for file-formats, and network protocol streams. If one vendor can lock up the broadcast format with a proprietary scheme, then all other vendors would be locked out.
Your analogy fails to take this into account - and that's why bundling, in itself isn't a crime - but in the context of computer operating systems, where file formats and protocols are not open or regulated, we can all wake up one morning and find ourselves in a world owned by a corporation. It's not speculative paranoia.
I'm not advocating government regulation of file-formats and protocols (but effectively, that's what we have with the current software-patents and DMCA environment - but it has the OPPOSITE effect that rf spectrum regulation has). I think it's important that companies be allowed to compete in this area so that a "best of breed" solution can evolve. But when a monopoly ties up the marketplace and excludes competitors, someone's got to step in somewhere, because the invisible hand ain't gonna fix it.
What I am advocating is a special class of patent, or perhaps the application of copyright law instead, some government regulation which mandates interoperability, (or, perhaps, in return for patent protection, open-source is required, so that interoperability can be maintained without infringing on IP), and that has to be overseen by a standards body, because the interoperability-vs-noninfringement is a delicate balance that would have to be intelligently maintained on a case-by-case basis - unworkable? Probably. Prone to abuse? Most likely. But better than the situation we have now. Closed, proprietary formats and protocols are the problem. Not necessarily bundling. Bundling is just higher-up the food chain, where lawyers can get a foothold, because the law doesn't deal with protocols very well.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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
This means a lock in to one proprietary format, and locks out other formats.
Hold on pardner... There's no need to have IE built into Windows, as anyone with any programming knowledge knows. ("Anyone" evidently does not include Bill Gates nor most US judges.)
Apple has a framework for rendering HTML, for example, that anyone can use. But Safari, Apple's browser, can be removed from the system, replaced with Mozilla, Omniweb, or any other choice.
That is the difference between MS and Apple. Apple includes their own app, but you don't have to use it or even have it installed. MS insists that their app must be installed or everything breaks.
Stacker had a patent which covered realtime disk compression AS A WHOLE, not just their implementation. MS did their best to avoid infringing, but it seems that it was one of those "wheel" patents which cover everything under the Sun. I'm not saying what happened to Stacker was right, but there was NO outright code theft as many seem to think.
Hey, they've already released the source to part of NT4.0 and Windows 2000... what more could EU want?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I've been wondering about this. I visited the Microsoft Update site the other day, to download something for my WinXP box. While there, I noticed that some of the security patches go out of their way to say that they are necessary for any PC with Internet Explorer version n installed, even if you don't use it as your web browser.
If the very presence of the software on my machine can cause a security vulnerability, that's surely a compelling argument that just optionally removing the front-end (basically a couple of icons and some menu entries) but still leaving the back-end around is not an adequate standard of "independence".
That's on top of the irritating way that options in Outlook Express now seem to be affected by what the user does in Office, and can't be changed back within OE itself, or the way that resizing the text in IE seems to affect help viewed in numerous other apps, again requiring some relatively fiddly setting to revert it to normal, which in turn reverts IE anyway.
One of these days, I really will get around to intalling a Linux distro on that 25GB partition I've been leaving aside on my new (a year ago...) PC. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
http://crn.channelsupersearch.com/news/crn/47630.a sp
Can't quote for copyright reason.
T
The gist of it it that Microsoft will probably be fined roughly 100-125 Million USD in the EU according to an unnamed source within the administration.
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.
You are forgetting your operating system history.
/WINNT or another folder, doesn't matter, it's just one API, and whether it's over here or over there makes no
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.
Hogwash. The browser and the player were previously separate apps which MS decided to wire into the O/S as an end-run around the consent decree and the subsequent actions in which Netscape was involved. Microsoft decided that the decree was a little too confining, and got clever with its coders. No other reasons make sense.
Where the browser is located, under
difference. That it is more consistently available to be called upon is, perhaps, a relief now to developers, that they won't have to stick the latest copy of IE on the CD or link to it on their website. THAT much I'll concede.
Linux hasn't got that level of consistency going for it yet, and no pretty outer wrapper the way MacOS does (and i'm NOT talking about desktops, people!) I'll concede also that Windows makes life simpler by providing fewer options.
What gets Microsoft in trouble isn't bundling this software with the operating system.
That is exactly what got them in trouble!
This software IS the operating system now.
Only by choice did MS do that, not out of necessity (except for legal necessity.) The availability of a consistent IE version on a given target installation platform is still random, so many developers choose to require IE 6.
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 how exactly did they do that? By bundling the browser with the operating system. That's what got them in trouble. It was the result of clever legal scheming, not any particular coding need.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
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?
An OCX is a programming component, like an EJB or a DLL. It is not an application, but applications can be built using it.
Similarly, if MS needs the O/S to be able to play WM video and audio, include some OCX or DLL including only that functionality (say, MSWMAVW.DLL), document the interface, and include an application (removable) that uses it.
Now, I build VanPlayer, a new player that plays all known audio and video formats, including the brand new OVA (Ogg/Van Audio, a new, more efficient Open Algorithm codec). I have the option of playing WMA files using MSWMAVW.dll, or I could use my own custom dll that plays WMA more efficiently. My choice. You, as the customer, have the choice of installing VanPlayer and removing Media Player, Leaving Media Player installed, or having both installed (with different default formats split between the players, e.g. MP10.5 plays WMA, and VanPlayer 1.0 played OVA.)
BTW, MCI32.OCX is not what you think it is.
We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...