Slashdot Mirror
MS May Be Forced To Sell Stripped-Down OS In EU
An anonymous reader submits "According to this article at Infoworld, Microsoft may be forced to sell a stripped-down version of Windows in the EU as a result of antitrust rulings, unless a settlement is reached during the next month to six weeks." (See this post from last week for more background on the EU's antitrust proceedings.)
"sell two versions of its ubiquitous operating system, Windows, in Europe: one with Media Player inside as it does at present, and another with the music and video playing software stripped out and sold separately, people close to the case said on Tuesday."
For the main part, the average user gets the choice: "Should I get an operating system that plays music and video" or one without. I know which one I would choose.
Not much of a choice.
This is NOT the best sig in the world, but this IS a tribute to the best sig in the world.
Of course, once this settlement is reached, they can start a new lawsuit over them putting Antivirus into XP SP2...
Though yes, the AV does serve a much better purpose than RealPlayer and WMP and such...
If MS is forced to exclude media player from windows, what is stopping them to put it up on the windowsupdate.com. So the next time a unknowing user goes to windowsupdate to get patches, he/she might get (automatically) Media Player as well. After all MS can term the Media Player a update (eventhough it is not).
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
M$ can strip this out, that out and have a million different versions.
But in the end windows 2000 + XP nowadays really only differ by a few registry keys. Some programs can do the magic for you. Cough.... NTswitcher.... Cough.
Why is it okay for a Linux distrubtion to ship with a bundled media player, but not okay for Windows?
Because we're not smart enough to actually go up against them with AntiTrust stuff and actually cut down on their product. Their monopoly has affected each and everyone.
I say... just don't release Windows in EU.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
The same thing is going to happen here -- they'll produce a version with crippled functionality that probably makes it more unstable (obviously you can make on OS without these things but it doesn't mean you can just yank it out once it's been integrated). Nobody will notice because no one in his right mind would purchase such a thing.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
So when a company gets to the point of being the market leader, they cannot offer what their lowly competition does?
OS X has Quicktime bundled, that is legal
XP has WMP bundled, that is illegal
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
The EU will require MS to price the WMP-free version cheaper. After all, you *are* paying for WMP's development when you buy Windows.
Of course, you're also paying for MS's *other* unprofitable divisions, such as the XBox. In a perfect world, the EU could somehow get MS to sell a version of Windows where, when you buy it, money doesn't go to subsidize the XBox. But I don't see that happening.
This is really what it's all about. An OS provides an interface between the hardware and the software and other low level functions (i/o, permissioning etc)
Windows is not just (even?) an operating system - it's a monopolized distribution method for all the associated media and proprietary file formats.
Case in point, even though Internet Explorer is so lacking in security and features compared to any modern browser(tabs?), it is used by the massive majority of Windows users because they don't realise that a browser is NOT a part of the O/S and so don't seek an alternative.
The european governments don't have cosy relationships with Redmond. Et voila!
while sco {
wget -O
}
It's too bad that it takes the EC in order to bring about the possibility of these changes. I know it's not the same system [insert pro-America comment here], but aren't these the type of things that the United States should be fighting for?
;>
Monti may also demand that Microsoft itself should propose "within a few months of a ruling" what Windows computer code it should reveal in order to make the operating system fully interoperable with rival software makers' programs for servers
Long overdue in my opinion, Microsoft is bundling way too much s&*^ together these days. They've built their entire market strategy around this idea; Just try to ask your Microsoft rep about any one product. The conversation may start with InfoPath, Sharepoint, Office, whatever, but will undoubtedly end up with discussions on Server 2003, MS SQL, Exchange, Commerce Server, ad infinitum until you have seen every single, poorly designed intertwined product they own. The truth is, Microsoft is right - their products only work well with each other.
I already have the source code anyway
Last August the Commission told Microsoft that its practice of bundling Media Player into Windows amounted to an abuse of the operating system's dominant position because it placed rival music and video players at a disadvantage.
Since I have never opened Media Player on my Windows box, I have no idea what sense Microsoft's position makes... Although their crowd control, err DRM, may not work properly.
As I understand EU law, they deal in dominance and not necessarily a monopoly. It is a lower standard. And you can almost always define a product market small enough to screw any fortune 1000 company.
Really Apple and Intel compatiable hardware systems have their own software markets. So if you are looking at as % of apple hardware shipped with quicktime they have dominance. But if you look at it as % of PC's shipped with quicktime there isn't dominance
a) giving a clear choice... instead of the 'only for advanced users' install time configuration allowing you to explicitly choose installables with an easy to use interface.
:( (are there others ?) ....and MS always seems to like shutting the door on the competition instead of providing a better product than it.
b) and keeping open-interfaces(even if not open src), so that other players can easily integrate their products into windows.
now how tough (or harmful) can that be ? (both a question and statement)
additions/mods to the list welcome...
It seems nothing short of total domination will satisfy microsoft... yet somehow that seems to be the only way to make money
[all generalizations are untrue except this one]
It reminds me of MS-DOS 6.21...
DOS 6.2 contained DoubleSpace which was ruled to have infringed on patents that were held by the maker of another drive-compression software called Stacker. As a result, Microsoft was required to release MS-DOS 6.21, a version that didn't contain DoubleSpace and had no other functional changes. What's more, they were also required to put out a step-up disk that'd upgrade 6.2 users to 6.21, all it did was delete the infinging program and upgrade command.com to report as the new version number, and price it at $10.
I remember seeing the step-up disk at Staples. It was in a small cardboard box with the front torn off, and the least attractive packing for a 1-disk program ever. No manual, just a small mailer-like wrapper around the individual disk. The store had only one box of 10 out, and it was shoved off to the side.
Microsoft didn't want to put this product out, nobody sane wanted to buy it... and it all showed.
BTW, the patent issue was later resolved in the typical Microsoft way. They settled the lawsuits by buying the company. MS-DOS 6.22 quickly came out, with the new patent-worry-free DriveSpace software, that did exactly the same thing DoubleSpace did with a few interface tweaks.
I always thought that the Plus! packs were pretty cool concepts. Why doesn't Microsoft just do a barebones OS then a cheapy Plus! product with all the extra crap nobody needs?
Meanwhile, Apple is perfectly happy letting you use your iPod with your Windows PC, or watch Quicktime movies on your Windows PC. Oh, yeah, that's really monopolistic on Apple's part, isn't it?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
I don't think Microsoft can currently keep European software from being imported into the USA.
However, Microsoft's innovation to solve that problem could very well be to create some scheme to disable the software on US computers, and then say it's a DMCA violation to defeat that scheme...
Nothing a previous version was able to do is ever impossible... it's only a question of how many revisions they have to go backwards to get themselves into compliance. :)
Unlike the US who just gives M$ a slap on the wrist.
Yes, I'm from the US.
bundling more than one? so it's okay if you run a sloppy and ineffiecent operation that prefers to confuse it's customers? But not okay if you just write one media player.
People need to grow some balls and stop using Windows entirely if they don't like some aspect of it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
That isn't the point: you can say the same about IE. The result of that is that many websites code specifally for IE and shrug if it doesn't work in other browsers. You can expect (as mentioned in the FA) that much content will be offered that ONLY works in WMP; thus creating a new monoploy for billg: control of digital media and a cut of every dollar spent on it and the decline of open standard media.
You can use more then just Apple's media format on the Mac. You can even get Windows Media Player 9 for Mac OS X and RealOne for Mac OS X.
Apple does not have a monopoly of home computer users, Microsoft does. Most things MS "integrates" into their OS will become a monopoly simply because they have a monopoly on the home computer user market.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
>why? because of monopolism or market dominance? not likely. as of november 2003 the ipod was the leader in portable digital music player with... 31%.
In exactly the same manner windows is not the leading operating system producer.
As of November, the iPod had a 31 percent market share among all MP3 players sold and an even larger share of the hard drive-based music player market. The company sold a record 730,000 iPods last quarter.
ie: If you compare windows against all operating systems out there (your microwave is using one, your TV, your VCR, stereo, for certain your satellite receiver, etc, etc) there's no way they could even have much more than 5 - 10% of the market.
Squeeze the market down to just what you want to define it as, and bingo! You have a monopoly case, as I suspect it would be for "MP3 players that support iTunes", and definately for "MP3 players that only work on a Mac" (New ones do, yes. If you bought it when it first came out, no.)
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Ok, way to many anti-MS people are getting way to happy about MS showing source code for Media Player. Think about it. Other companies will have the source, leads to other companies being able to take advantage of media Player, leads to more companies relying on Media Player.
The idea here is to allow Quicktime, Real (ugh), etc to compete fairly.
I think the only real solution here is to make Media Player an optional install (it's not yet required by the OS, even if it is tied in firmly) and to not allow MS to force OEMs to install it/not install others. At this point other companies will be able to get their media players installed at the OEM level, ensuring them the same level of competition.
Although, for the record, my new Dell laptop came with MediaPlayer, Real, Quicktime, and some Dell Media thing. So I don't see the issue here, other than being unable to remove MediaPlayer. If I could remove MediaPlayer I don't think there would be an issue.
And I would like to thank everyone who made it possible for me to have a bunch of additional media player software packages to block on my firewall. grr.
Whee signature.
The difference is, I can delete quicktime from my Apple computer without having to worry about my computer crashing as a result the deletion. I can use whatever player I like without my system telling me what it would prefer. That is choice.
I for one look forward to seeing if Microsoft is forced to sell the "stripped down OS" that Bill Gates and other "expert witnesses" in Microsoft swore blind could not be produced/delivered without fatally destroying the entire OS.
If you have such a short memory that you don't remember what I'm referring to, google for articles describing the shennanigans at the most Microsoft AntiTrust hearings.
EU to Microsoft: We hereby require you to prove once and for all that you undeniably committed perjury when you claimed in court at the recent US anti-trust hearings that a stripped down Microsoft OS could not be produced.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
This is SO fucking BS. I'm not a huge Windows fan, but a decision like that by the EU is so freakin' sad it's pathetic. MS has the right to itegrate any feature they damn well want to into their own OS. If you don't like it, BUY ANOTHER DAMN OS. There is no rule that says an OS has to be limited to running the computer basics. It's like telling a car maker not to include A/C or power windows because they're too competitive. Now how assnine is that? About just as assnine as the EU enforcing a stripped down version of windows. Anti-trust is one thing. that's their business practices. The features they include within windows entirely another, which they have every right to add as they see fit. Punish them for anti-trust. Fine, but this is the saddest, laziest way i can think of to do it.
Fucking lightweights.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
My God, if they took out the browser the average computer illiterate wouldn't know what to do.
Bah, they solved the equation of download Kazaa and leech mp3 files. Kazaa isn't included with Windows. At least enough users did to make it an international problem.
What are you saying -- that users are sitting with IE, having no clue on what to do else with their computers than typing in Wordpad and playing Minesweeper?
But hey, at least that tiny minority of competetitors will get make some nice profit, right?
Did you consider why they're a tiny minority today? If they'd be able to compete, did you consider how much better the software would be today? Monopoly is never a good thing for technology advancement.
Make a significantly better product and communicate this to your target market. Do this, and you'll win.
Nope, and that's the problem! Opera is surely a more feature rich product (and still simple to use), still it's in extreme minority. Mozilla has what, 3% of the browser market? Does this go in line with how powerful the software is? No. It doesn't even help that Mozilla is also offered for free.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Any manufacturer should be able to differentiate their products by providing whatever add-ons and user experience they like on top of the Windows operating system... Meaning they can add or remove whatever programs they like, whether from microsoft or others.
There needs to be pricing protection, (Unusual, and illegal unless you have been found to be a monopoly), for the competitors so there needs to be some fee for the microsoft add-on pack. And there cannot be discounting below some floor, and no tie-ins to any sort of percentage of sales for shared marketing dollars.
The retail pack (upgrade and new) can include whatever microsoft wants to include.
Just removing it is penalizing the customer by insisting he go through extra steps what he needs. And where does it stop? Browser? IM client? FTP client? File Explorer? Notepad? Calculator? GDI???? Direct X?
Let the manufacturers create demand for competitive software, by allowing them to customize the user experience. This will be good for the consumer, and create competition for all parts of the system. Including keeping Microsoft on its toes. Instead of a worse experience for the consumer, create a better one the old fashioned way, competition. Make Dell compete with IBM and HP and Gateway not mearly over distribution and manufacturing, but on the actual experience the user gets. Each trying to outdo the other. Some incredibly simple systems for kids, some business oriented models, the media model, the scientific model, etc... There may be the microsoft branded stuff, a sony suite, The IBM suite, the cow machine... This is what was broken by the microsoft monopoly, it seems this is the way to fix it.
You forgot the real gem in the whole silly concept. There's no objective, consistent definition of when a corporation becomes a monopoly. It's like the obscenity of business - "I know it when I see it". Practically speaking, the only way a company finds out it is a monopoly is when it gets convicted of monopoly abuse.
Why not, instead of making MS strip everything out of it's operatings system, things we've all come to expect and demand. Imagine buying an operating system, in todays day and age, without a web browser. In order to get online, you would need to go to a retailer, buy some softaware package, bring it home, install it, then update it to the most recent version. Next you have to find a decent media player, but you don't know much about computers so you're not sure where to look. There 'computer machines' are also supposed to be good for email, but that's not bundled either. It's not practical to suggest stripping anything from any OS. But rather, to stop the monopoly, legislate that it must distribute with 2 or 3 alternatives to each program in question, all equally as visible as the next. Then, the consumer can chose which default browser, media player and other free products they would like to use as their defaults. This seems a much more practical solution, that would even give much more exposure to the smaller companies in competition with Microsoft.
(Futurama) Fry: "My folks were always on me to groom myself and wear underpants. What am I, the pope?"
Most people buy their PC with bundled software. The resellers like dell, compaq etc would choose what browser they include with their system and more then likely include more then one browser.
I remember when any PC you bought used to have an icon for AOL and compuserve, it would be just like that.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
linux distrobutions dont force you to install anything (except the obvious stuff like the kernel, etc) Microsoft are charging more for their os's because they pay their programmers to write ie, wmp etc. wmp also is actually an income for microsoft - you can buy from them through it, now microsoft sell digital music - thats not fair, what about apples online music store and all the others. Microsoft are trying to become the only software vendor, so if something says "apple" or "mccaffe" or "winamp" or anything other than "microsoft" then people think its crap. Microsoft know how stupid people think, and they want to strengthen this. Who is to say microsoft definately wont start charging for their new AV or wmp or IE once there is no more market for these products and theyve killed off the competition. thats one reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do this. (sorry about the crap spelling if there was any)
The focus is getting Microsoft to unbundle because of the manner in which they're doing it, making it excessively difficult to replace their bundled applications with competitors products (which, by the way, existed prior to the bundling. Microsoft has essentially shut them out)
Remember, people didn't buy the OS when all this stuff was bundled. They bought it when any number of applications could be used to do these jobs. Once Microsoft had achieved a monopoly on the market, *then* they started the whole bundle-applications -> hide the interface -> force consumer upgrade cycle. That's what is causing the trouble.
People have previously used the analogy of BMW putting their own radios in cars. It's wrong. A more accurate version would be this:
BMW, through a series of back-door trade deals and fleet discounts, gain a monopoly in the worldwide car market. Now consider Pioneer. For years, they've made replacement radios for BMWs. They make a healthy living out of it. Suddenly, BMW changes all the connectors to the radios and require a coded signal to be sent between the radio and car electronics for it to work. Add to that they won't tell anyone else how the signal is coded and have the radios welded into the car.
Now you're getting near where Microsoft is at. Forcing the unbundling is the first step. Forcing the release of the interface spec would be the next step. That, unfortunately, looks unlikely to happen.
Once again, we're not just talking about 'a large corporation', we're talking about a *monopoly*, ie. a coporation who controls the market. What the bundling is doing is leveraging MS's monopoly in the OS market to gain a monopoly in the browser and media player market. That needs to be stopped.
-Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
Although IANAL, I am pretty convinced this is not true. The rules are the same for everyone. The point is that a monopolist can do things others can not, such as killing off a competitor in another market by bundling applications or making sure your competitor's stuff is incompatible with yours.
Being a monopoly is not illegal, using your monopolistic force to your advantage is. You are not allowed to do things others cannot do because they are not a monopoly. However, as a monopoly you do not suffer from restrictions others lack.
Of course, when you are a monopolist who abuses his power, a court may put special restrictions on you as a punishment.
Can I get a UK company to sell me a copy or do I have to download a warez version of this one.
I would be thrilled if I can get XP Pro without Media Player, MS-Firewall, IE and the Outlook Express hooks into everything.
Umm, MS *only* provided those to thoroughly suffocate Netscape out of existence. Mission accomplished, and now those "free" versions of IE are curiously no longer developed or supported by our philanthropist friends at MS.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato