Slashdot Mirror


Windows Could Lose Media Player in Europe?

Chris Gondek writes "If Microsoft cannot settle an antitrust case brought by European Union regulators, the company may be ordered to remove Windows Media Player as an integrated feature of the dominant Windows operating system, at least for personal computers sold in Europe. The European Commission also could order Microsoft to include rival media players with Windows to make those products as easy for users to access as Microsoft's own music and video player."

9 of 605 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This is rediculous... by MoonFog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Also, who gets to decide what products should be included ? I don't use media player, I use zoom player, but I seriously doubt I'll have anything to say on what products should be included instead.

    IMHO, instead of including other products etc, let the user choose whether or not he/she wants to install media player during the installation of Windows.

  2. This is a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I make short films, and stream with windows media all the time. Everybody has it, and it's a lot less hassle then supporting all three formats.

    By not including windows media player, it has less of a chance of becoming dominant, and most people don't want to configure and support Quicktime, Real, and Windows Media.

    1. Re:This is a bad thing. by pldms · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I make short films, and stream with windows media all the time. Everybody has it, and it's a lot less hassle then supporting all three formats.

      Everbody has it? No. I don't, and I suspect many others don't. And I'm unclear what you mean by 'all three formats'. I assume you mean the big three players, but that's quite different from three formats.

      Personally I tend to use MPEG4 which has plenty of support, on a wide variety of platforms. That support includes playback, creation, and streaming tools. I can point to mplayer, vlc, ffmpeg, 3ivx (which enables MPEG4 on Media Player), xvid, divx, darwin streaming server, etc etc.

      This, AFAICT, is the real issue. Which formats, rather than players, will be dominant. I don't particularly like the MPEG4 licencing conditions, but at least it is supported by more than one company. The standard is available and widely implemented. WMV, and whatever video and audio codecs it contains, don't appear to be so open.

      --
      Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
      me a number based on the order in which I joined
  3. Re:BS by Shisha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I couldn't agree more. As much as Microsoft does have a monopoly, this does not make sense. Maybe they should be ordered to make it easy for OEMs to include any media player they want.

    But then the next service pack would probably revert this... all sorts of problems.

    Besides I have a little sympathy for Real, QuickTime etc. because I'm sure that once they'll be in they'd try to be every inch as monopolistic as Microsoft.

    Maybe a better approach would be to order that Microsoft has to release interoperability specifications for any data format they use. And make sure that unlike in the US, this ruling can be used by Microsoft's biggest rivals, which means Linux, which means that people could use it specifically in GPL software.

  4. Re:Fabulous! by Da+VinMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're right, it's not. Neither is a 3D engine (DirectX), a browser, an email client, a remote desktop protocol and program, a backup tool, a disk defragmenter, a paint program, a text editor, a solitaire game, a file zipper, and all those nice device and database (ODBC) drivers really aren't part of the OS either - after all, it's not like Microsoft makes most of the stuff that requires those drivers.

    Actually, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to provide any of that to the consumer. Everything they provide in the OS is a lost sales opportunity somewhere else. It's totally anti-competitive of them to provide any of it. You should have to pay for every feature you get. The OS should just make the computer run.

    Let's see - besides the cost of the core Windows OS then (which I'm sure you'll argue should be free - so let's just leave that out), you would probably pay about $50 each for every new program you add to the system. If you add 10 new programs to the computer (which is conservative), you get to spend $500.

    Now, what does Media Player have to do with the core OS? Nothing. It "merely" makes it useful.

    Troll.

    --
    Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
  5. My Hard Drive by AviLazar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I pay a lot of money for my hard drive. So if Real Player wants to force itself into my hard drive, can I charge them rent? I think Microsoft should make their player a downloadable option just to get rid of the European nag. (as other have suggested) Better yet stop supporting the European market (that would be ideal) :) Real player was good a long time ago, then it got crappy. Even when I did have a registered version, the unregistered version would creep onto my computer and then annoy me with spyware, pop up ads, and trying to overbear my windows settings. If people want it, they will download it, if they don't know any better then why should we use their ignorance against them by forcing them to have a program they may never utilize!

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  6. Re:This is rediculous... by sbrown123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would be happy to not have any at all "pre-installed". I use WinAmp personally but keep having the headache of where I delete icons and file extension preferences from Window's Media Player and get them all again the next time I do a Windows Update. I could see getting them again if I updated the player but I get them on security updates!

  7. Re:This is rediculous... by diablobynight · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Of course they are installing their own. For two reasons. They own it, hence forth licensing is easy. And two they want their OS to be able to support a large amount of media without the user having to install anything else. It suppord mpeg 1, mp3, wav, and can support other things as well, if you want to download the codecs.

    Linux doesn't come with Windows Media Player, or winamp, why should windows come with other people's shit. This doesn't make any sense. I think Europe is just ass backwards and hates the large American company. Windows should just screw them over and stop selling in Europe and offer no more licenses to Europeans, and then go on a lawsuit frenzy against anyone that continues to run windows over there.

    It's ok if you hate Microsoft but telling them their not allowed to enhance their products is retarded, if you get a AC delco stereo in a GM car(AC delco used to be owned by GM, maybe still is) you can't take GM to court because they didn't package their car with a aiwa stereo.

    Also, windows makes no attempt to not allow you to install real player, or quick time, so i don't see how their in the wrong.

    --
    Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
  8. Re:Why Indeed by leviramsey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Netscape was poop circa NS4. It was that blunder that got them in trouble, since people began looking for other browsers. Had NS4 been even equal to IE4, NS would probably still be dominant today (and Mozilla would probably never be open-sourced, but that's neither here nor there).

    When competing with Microsoft, the cardinal rule is: don't release crap. If you try to race Microsoft to see who can do the crappiest software, you're toast, because no one is better at making money off of crap software than Microsoft. Look at Adobe. They're getting squeezed by Apple and Microsoft in their core business (photo software). Yet, neither is really making a dent, and likely never will. Adobe continues to release quality software, and even if Microsoft releases a Photoshop competitor that matches it in quality, Adobe will still win, thanks to the installed base of experienced users. Of course, if Adobe stumbles and Photoshop has a bad version that nobody wants to use, Microsoft may well take over the market. But you can hardly blame Microsoft for Adobe releasing crap, can you?