Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Facing European Sanctions
Shakrai writes "CNN and Money Magazine are reporting that a draft decision by the EU committee overseeing the Microsoft investigation appears to recommend fairly severe sanctions against our favorite software company. The article states that the ruling will likely force Microsoft to offer a second version of Windows without 'built-in audiovisual software' (Windows Media Player) for EU customers. While this sounds like a good thing, the article also mentions that Microsoft has an appeals process and will likely get an injunction against enforcement while they pursue said appeal, which may take years."
I'm sure the average windows user wouldn't want to have to play around with selecting/installing video playback software when all they want to do is playback a clip they've downloaded.
My poor Mum!!!
...found within bundled software like IE, OE, Media Player and Movie Maker. M$ would voluntarily unbundle these components or run out of cash quite soon.
"The European Commission draft requires Microsoft to share proprietary information with rival server makers"
That's always my sticking point. I'm not as much bothered that they support video playback in their default system (they also support image playback and text playback, after all) as to their generally incompatible and excessively proprietary methods.
*EVERY* OS has had/comes with/includes a media player. It is a functional part of the OS to support the playback of audio/video sounds in everything from user-interface, alters, notifications and theme support.
Heck, its even part of the mandated accessibility/disability acts for people who require audio/visual/tactile feedback.
I for one preferr the free stuff then Real or even Quicktime.. atleast i don't have things popping up telling me useless facts (even after being disabled) or having mime type wars on my pc.
I bought windows because it was easy.
I bought linux and still do because it was powerfull.
Each has there own use, but this has got to be the most retarded lawsuit i've EVER heard of.
Why doesn't Apple get any heat for including iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, QuickTime, Safari, etc?
:)
(Just wondering other ppl thoughts, plz don't flame me...
The difference is that neither Mandrake, SuSE, Debian are using a monopoly in one area (OS) to create a monopoly in another area (media), that is what is illegal even in the US. Don't you recall the AT&T situation?
Um, no, because they're not (ab)using a monopoly position to get their own software on there.
Duh.
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
These distributions also give the user the option to install these packages or not, whereas Microsoft forcefully installs media player/ie/etc. and provides 2,591 icons and shortcuts to it. Quite a substantial difference the way the two offer the software to their users.
Many distributions ship with software such as XMMS, mplayer and the gimp. Should Mandrake, SuSE, Debian and the like be fined for carrying this software?
First: no one of those distributions has a de facto monopoly in the OS market and it's trying to abuse that position to get the monopoly in other markets, such as the media players one.
Second: on the average Linux distro, you have twenty different text editors, a dozen media players, and another dozen graphic manipulation programs.
So, your is, indeed, a non sequitur.
You can save space. Or you can save time. Don't ever count on saving both at once. -- First Law of Algorithmic Analisys
I personally don't like Microsoft... but you have to ask yourself if Media Player is removed who is affected by this in a negative way?
.wma 3 years ago?) into a media player monopoly (where were .wma players 3 years ago? you can now buy windows only wma only players) into a net-broadcast monopoly (that you can only view with media player on an approved platform).
Microsoft. Oh, you meant in the short term? Possibly users. In the long term however this stops Microsoft being able to leverage their desktop monopoly into a format monopoly (where was
In the long run it might be necessary to hurt consumers a little bit today to protect them tomorrow. Ideally the solution will involve forcing them to support a patent unencumbered license unencumbered format alongside (or instead of) wma to ensure they can't use their existing monopoly to destroy interoperability.
Beep beep.
It is a good idea. It happened with IE and should happen with any other Windows endorsed products. There is no reason to ship them pre-installed. The argument that Linux do that is false because XMMS and The Gimp are seperate entities from the distribtuion.
" So can't OEM people install real, etc before selling at the moment? Guess not."
Of course they can do but why would they ? They can't buy a cheaper version of Windows without a media player so there's no point in them shopping around for a cheaper alternative.
Stripping out Media Player from Windows will allow the OEM's to judge Media Player vs it's rivals on a fair footing, e.g. knowing the cost of each application.
In theory anyway, I hope there is some provision that the two versions of windows will need to maintain some kind of sensible price differentiation.
Of course it's convenient to get all of that stuff included with your operating system. But if you remember, there used to be a market for things like browsers and video playback software. That market is all but gone, thanks to Microsoft including these products with their OS. I know, there is something called Mozilla for us staunch MS-haters. But good luck trying to sell (or even give) your alternative browser to the public at large.
I don't feel too bad about MS including such things with their OS, even though I am sure producers of, say, video editing software are having nightmares about MS including that functionality with Windows in a few years time. it's hard to draw the line: sure, no one would argue against operating systems needing a decent file manager, for example. Yet people used to make a living developing and selling separate file managers, a long time ago.
What I do have a problem with, is that MS sometimes not just includes browsers and video software with the OS, but made sure that it was rather hard to install an alternative product as well. That is what they should be punished for... but this ruling doesn't really accomplish that. As far as browsers and video playback software is concerned, it's all water under the bridge, and you correctly note that it will be consumers who will be hurt by removing these from the OS. MS probably doesn't care a great deal.
I would have preferred a big fine for MS, to make it clear what is unacceptable behaviour. It has to hurt if it's to heal.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
WMA becomes widely installed, and is the default.
People start recording their music as WMA.
Companies sell in WMA (for the wide user base).
Stations start broadcasting in WMA (ditto).
People buy WMA devices.
People are locked into WMA forever now their media is all in WMA form and they own WMA devices.
WMA works best in Windows (and DRM WMA only works in Windows), and is a barrier to changing platforms.
Profit. Monopoly extended and locked in, and entrenched in a totally new area. Desktop monopoly (and all the other monopolies that perpetuate it and are perpetuated by it) made more secure.
THIS is why a bit of user convenience has to be sacrificed. Made media player (and all the other integrated stuff) come uninstalled on a second CD so that at least the user has to think if they want to use it.
Otherwise they will expand their monopoly one niche at a time - desktop, office, server, media, handhelds, music players, gaming consoles, televisions, cars, watches, the whole world... untill it is too late to back out.
Beep beep.
How is this insightful?
If monetary penalties were imposed on security bugs (or any other bugs for that matter), it would wreak havoc on the software industry. And the free software community would be one of the first to burn from the full heat of it. Microsoft will still have some cash to spare, but most organizations/people that produce/write free software have limited budgets.
Don't quote me on this.
Yes, the freedom to choose what software is most suitable for the job it needs to do and maintaining that choice. If it's a commercial piece of software or even an MS package, so be it as long as the end-user had chosen to use it.
If this were the case, they would only attack Microsoft on those terms.
Oh, so we have no right to attack Microsoft on issues of security, instability and price then?
The WMP is not a freedom issue.
It's a transport for DRM which means you get to do less with the stuff you rightfully own than you did before. It also means you get to pay an MS "tax" to keep using your stuff. Of course it's about freedom.
If a customer doesn't like Windows prepackaged with WMP, there's nothing stopping that person from acquiring another OS.
What about somebody that uses Windows but doesn't like WMP? Are you saying that not liking a single package on an OS justifies reformatting your hard disk and putting a new OS on? What about simply having the choice of slotting in the player you want to use without the fact the concern that WMP is still installed somewhere doing its stuff in the background? If WMP is not that easy to remove then just what is it doing in the background then?
I see no hypocrisy here...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Has anyone ever thought about making MS open their windows update functions to their competitors?
Unbundling is useless if you are forced to download eleven and twenty patches after installation and media player looks like one of them.
you think MS will reduce margins if they get fined or will they pass that cost to the customer either indirectly (format lockin/upgrades etc) or directly via product price increases ?
doesn't really take a MBA to work out what they will do, fining them will not punish them at all, especially with the worlds richest people at the helm.
This example was written about Office, but it's relevant to this argument:
Say that Office was a seperate company to Windows.
Office the company would see that making their product available on every platform would make them more money. Thus it would be so. Windows the company would have no incentive to build in special APIs for Office. Office would compete on it's merits and so would Windows, and competition COULD and WOULD exist effectivly in the marketplace.
Now, say that Office and Windows are made by the same company.
Office would by and large see that by making their product only available for Windows they would make less money but it would be worth more because every copy sold would also sell a Windows license. Windows wants to make sure that everyone who buys Windows chooses office so they do what they can to make it seem to run faster, better etc. Consumers get screwed by lack of choice.
(Obviously Office is also available for Mac, but this is due to historic pre-monopoly reasons. The same decision might be made today, but only to dodge having the AntiTrust people looking at them too sharply. If Office had been split off from Windows it would likley be available on IRIX, HPUX, AIX, Linux, BSD etc today as well as Windows and OS X.)
Beep beep.
Given that Microsoft is a large American company, this European anti-trust process could certainly be seen as partly political. Just think of the new era of non-cooperation, tit-for-tat, economic retaliation, etc. in the wake of the split over the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Unfortunately, this means the Bush administration is likely to line up squarely behind Microsoft on this issue ("we can prosecute them for anti-trust, but I'll be damned if those French bastards are gonna get away with it"). Even if the goal of the European action is entirely admirable, say, they want to improve competition and open up standards, the administration will for political reasons end up opposing it.
This will result in them doing spiteful things that tend to favor proprietary software and disfavor Free software.
I guess it's not surprising that powerful people will oppose anything that lessens the control they have over others.
If I were the dictator, MS would be forced to document the file formats it is using (including all WMV formats, of course), all network protocols, and to provide sufficient NTFS documentation so that I can finally can mount /dev/hda2 with read-write soonish.
Media software makers, or Microsoft?
This is not going to change anything. Microsoft will pressure the manufacturers to install their software. The consumer will never have a choice. Another total win for Microsoft.
I see alot of fellow slashdot posters slamming on "Why only WMP?". Well, the outcome of this sanction is wider than WMP alone, much wider. It will leverage future sanctions on other software bundled with Windows in speed and decision power. By taking this case as an example, it will become much easier to make sanctions against other monopoly misuse. That is what the real power of this decision is all about.
This is a replacement signature.
So for now just speculate and pretend MS will have to abide by the sanctions. By the time the ruling does take place users will be familiar enough (if they are not already) with WMP that it would be hard for anything to take its place. If a user has purchased any addins for WMP it is unlikely for them to prefer another player. Personally I think this is more of a burden for the users because they will have to find the newest WMP to download then its 4-5 patches.
I think its great that Microsoft includes basic functionality like a media player, word processor, calculator, internet browser, etc.
I hope that we all realize that the PROBLEM lies in preventing the uninstallation of said items without "crippling" the OS.
I think MS should be allowed to include whatever they want, as long as the no-install/uninstall option is there and its real (as in really uninstalls the files, not just "hiding" them).
Why can't Microsoft see how easy it would be to fix this? But then again, that sort of tunnel vision is what has gotten them into the hot water they are in.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Cheaper version of Windows? I think it will be funny if MS sells the new version for the same price and just tells them the player was a freebie.
I think the EU is going in the wrong direction, saying MS has to unbundle Media Player is the stupidest thing I have heard of. If thats the case all OS's should unbundle Media Players, Mac's, Linux, whatever. Why play favorites, aren't they trying to make things equal. Maybe they should unbundle notepad and calculator as well, their are 3rd party applications out there. Hell I don't even use the newest media player, I use media player classic. But I have to say its nice to have common apps installed as soon as the OS is installed, so you don't have to go searching and downloading all this stuff. What if you don't have access to the internet what are you going to do then? Their is a reason MS bundles these, to make it easy for users. by removing any applications they just make it really really hard for consumers. Yes they should have an option to uninstall anything you don't want. *sarcasim* --> But I say why stop with MS and Media Player, I say NO OS's should bundle any Apps, No quicktime on Mac's, no Notepad in Windows, no OS's can't have any application pre-installed if their is a 3rd party version out there. *end sarcasim* What the hell is wrong with people, this won't hurt MS at all, only hurts us and fellow consumers.
Therefore, if your business has a machine that simply needs open office, and not an media player, or web server, or net sniffing tools, it will take less than five minutes to select that machine from the installer. There is no issue of violating licensing agreements, DCMA, or whatever. You have made a business decision that you do not want this stuff on the machine, in the case of the media player perhaps to minimize your exposure to copyright violation, and there is not reason to impose opportunity costs to implement those decisions.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I think Microsoft's answer should be "We ain't going to bundle sh*t. We are taking MPlayer out, and we'll leave it to the user to install whatever he wants."
Why should microsoft be forced to bundle competitors' producs? What about regression testing, supporting bugs in those programs, etc?
There may be a lot of 3rd party apps that use it but do they use it because they feel it's the best tool for the job or do they use it just because it's already there.
If Microsoft were to make WMP a plugable component that would not break when another player was plugged in in it's place it would allow vendors and consumers to choose the best player. Microsoft cares nothing for the consumer so they make WMP such a pain to remove that most people give up trying, effectively removing their right to choose.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Hmm... I don't think you're with me here.
What if Microsoft HAD 0 software. Would you have to go out and buy your own calc.exe, notepad.exe, browser.exe, program-to-view-extension.exe, etc..
If Microsoft wasn't able to sell Windows directly then you wouldn't be able to buy Windows in this condition. If you had distribution providers, they would select which apps to install, maybe Microsoft apps, maybe replacement apps, maybe both. The fact is, you would still have the apps with which to perform your usual tasks.
How would you download software from the internet? if Microsoft doesnt HAVE any (out of the box) software to access the internet?
Again, the distribution providers would add whatever browser(s) they decided to. You could have a Windows distro which sets Firefox as the default browser for example, but also has IE installed for those who are monopoly-friendly. Maybe you'd have Firefox, IE and Opera. It would be up to the distro provider.
Linux is open source, Windows is not.
This is no reason why Windows can't be sold as distributions. Distributors would have to obtain basic Windows licenses and create their own distro CDs, why should this have anything to do with source code? 'Distribution' doesn't mean Open Source CD which anybody can copy.
You mean like 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT, 2k, XP, etc.
The various Windows versions are 'versions', not 'distributions'. The problem comes where Microsoft is in control of what goes on its CDs, and the fact that it has a monopoly whereby people will mostly only buy Windows, and therefore will use whatever comes pre-installed with it. With a distribution, Microsoft would not be in control of which third-party apps were available for end-users.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
What exactly is the purpose of a fine for a monopoly such as Microsoft? Does the EU think that the money is going to come out of the pay of top MS executives?
Of course not. Any financial penalties will just be passed along to the customer, as usual, who in this case does not have a choice due to the monopoly situation.
More interesting is what the EU will plan to do with the penalty money? Invest it in open source, require open file formats and standards?
Its not Microsoft's job to ensure that they do either. Or maybe you were brainwashed in your Economics class to think so.
I took economics, and your arguing sematics anyhow. It is NOT Microsoft's job to ensure they do, but it IS Microsoft's job to NOT run afoul of anti-trust. What they are doing is bundling everything including the kitchen sink in a bid to crush their competitiors. When Microsoft builds code, they tie it to the operating system so tightly that it works better. When rivals build code they have two choices: (1) License MS codebase to get better compatibility (and thus give up all rights to your software - case in point, Citrix/Terminal Services); (2) keep your software to yourselves and deal with incompatibility because you do not have access ot the codebase.
There is nothing wrong with bundling media players and browsers with Windows. If there are better alternatives, users will seek them out.
WTF? Are you kidding, what users? You, me? Yes, we probably would and do. Problem is that we make up a small majority of users. My mom doesn't know how to install software, and yours probably doesn't either. That goes for 80-90% or users. By MS tying in software, they *know* people are not going to install alternatives.
Developers also "know" that WMP is likely to be installed on all these desktops so they build for it. That also opens up another can of worms. And by having the technologies on the desktop it open other markets for them.
How this is anti-competitive, I do not know. Users have choices still. How this is abuse, I do not see.
The courts have ruled it to be anti-competitive, and although I do not have the strongest grasp on all the legal ramifications of their actions, I do know that the idea behind their actions is wrong. Morally, and legally. You can't argue with the legal side. They have been convicted of same.
What you are asking to do is to force Microsoft to ship a product that would be inferior (funcionality wise) to operating systems such as Linux (most distributions include all sorts of apps), Mac OS, and others that bundle media players and other applications.
You just enforced my point friend. Linux ships MULTIPLE apps, OSX ships MULTIPLE apps. Miscoroft ships ONE app, and it is their own. And further to that point, how would it be inferior if they were forced to bundle multpile apps as you have succinctly stated above.
You can't excuse a convicted monopolist. I don't care how much you beleive they should be allowed to do this, maybe they should, but they are using their monopoly position to further proceed into other markets - that is illegal, and that is my point.
Party?!? What kind of party is this? Where's the damn keg?
Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit
Option 1: Windows XP with Media Player, 99 Euros.
Option 2: Windows XP without Media Player, 99 Euros.
Retail purchasers and OEM licensees will be completely free to choose either version.
No, this is not a joke. If the EUC think this is too obvious to mention and prohibit, they are in for a rude awakening.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Funny thing is, if you create a _different_ version of a software, chances are you encur some extra cost in the process. So by rights, a version without Media player would be more costly.
If only more people actually did this! If even 10% of the people who complained about M$ actually did something about it, the software world would be a very different place. It's amazing the number of people who feel that they are a special case, that they have a particular special reason for not switching to something else. (Yes, in some cases those reasons are genuine, but I suspect laziness plays a large part in many.)
I try to act on principle. I've only ever owned two pieces of M$ software, for example: one was the Psion Series 3 version of AutoRoute (which doesn't really count as it was written by a separate company that got bought out shortly before release; M$ dropped it soon after), and the Mac OS X version of IE (pre-installed; I keep it as a last-resort browser and use it every few months). It's not hard, really -- it's a pain when people keep sending me Word documents, but there are various workarounds even if people won't take the hint -- and I don't feel I'm making any great sacrifices. I just don't put following the crowd as my top priority.
So, to all you people who use M$ software and complain about it: don't complain, STOP USING IT!
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
> Microsoft is a convicted monopolist
How about apache? It dominates the web server market. BIND for the DNS market? Or even BSD code in the MS Windows distribution? Of course, they are not monopolists, but AFAIK being a monopolist doesn't mean one has to make sure everything works perfect, while smaller entities could get away with distributing inferior products. So it's not really about being a monopolist rather than marketshare. If you're talking about marketshare, a lot of free software dominates niche markets (like in the above examples), should they be fined too?
Suppose one day Linux achieves world domination, are free software developers obligated to ensure their software is 100% bug-free?
> and has steadfastly refeused to unbundle these bug-infested products
If people use them, they use them. Unbundling it doesn't really make the situation better. Of course, those who do not use the bundled software will be less likely to be hit by these bugs, but for essential software like web browsers, media players, people will install them anyway. Of course, they might install products from other companies, but in general, it doesn't guarantee a more secure system.
> If they really believe that integrated media/internet/mail is part of the OS of the future, then they should ensure that said OS is secure
Nothing is 100% secure. Even OpenBSD has had a few holes in the past (*Only* one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!). How should one draw a line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" risks of a security exploit?
All in all, it all boils down to how to draw a line between "bad" Microsoft that needs to be fined, and "good" Open source software that is exempt from these charges.
Besides, once a ruling is made that software companies are liable for bugs, then more will follow.
Don't quote me on this.
They'd have to release the formats/protocols at least six months or so before releasing the software, to prevent other developers playing continual catch-up. (Without changing them in the interim, of course.) And they'd have to be prevented somehow from hiding details that might allow subtle incompatibilities, later lock-in, or other preferential treatment. Ideally, they'd be made to release an open-source reference implementation, too.
And they'd have to show that implementing the protocol or using the format didn't infringe any patents -- not just that a patent-free method was available, but that M$ couldn't use a better, patent-encumbered method unavailable to their competitors. And that they couldn't file such patents in the future.
And so on. Time and time again, companies have learned that you can't play M$ on their own terms and break even, let alone win. They've learned a whole battery of techniques to steal an unfair advantage. And blocking them all is no easy task.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Get used to disappointment.
As in the US antitrust case, these sanctions are remedies based on a false set of assumptions so the end result will not make anti-MS zealots happy.
In both cases, the legal efforts were driven by competitors who wanted to rub something, anything in Bill's face. They were hoping that they'd be able to break MS up, but failing that, they were left with remedies that don't mean much.
In the US case, for example, were Sun or Oracle really held up in their competition against MS because of secret API's? Have they added any new functionality to their products based on the new information?
In the EU case, forcing MS to provide a Media-Player-free version of Windows is unlikely to have a substantial impact on MS's market share in Europe. Just as the claim that IE was going to allow MS to take over the Internet turned out to be specious, so will similar claims for Media Player.
seriously what is the real issue here? Closed, proprietary formats. None of the unbundling will change the fact that people with Windows will have a system hostile to interoperability.
This assumes that the current prices of Microsoft products reflect their "costs". I have seriously doubt that this is true.
Make it illegal for a company that sells it's own sotfware, from including clauses in the vein of "we aren't responsible if it breaks, and costs you money"
That immediately puts every commercial software "company", from microsoft down to the lowliest shareware author, out of business. Is that a good thing?
If they want to bundle other applications, they should charge for those apps, and include the invoice of all the apps that the consumer is paying for. All this with the option of NOT buying certain apps for the consumer. This, I think would force MS to drop the price Windows. Figure, the total bundles price is, oh say $100, with all the bundled stuff included. Start peling off the bits you don't want, what's the price then?
Your goal here is not fairness to the consumer. Don't pretend it is. You want microsoft to be forced to create a product that is so much of a pain in the ass people don't want to install it or one that won't have enough of a feature set for people to give a damn about. Honestly, if microsoft had "played nice" and stuck to selling just the base operating system I'd be typing this on a Mac and the icon next to the story would be Steve Jobs photoshopped to look like a borg. And if not them, then who? No one? Well in that world we're all using Linux and all the downtrodden microfucked software companies who you pretend to champion are STILL out of business because instead of WMP bundled, it's MPlayer or whatever the decent FREE player for Linux happens to be this week. Net gain to said companies who are getting this protection? None. They are still irrevelent.
I can imagine some base install and then a web activation (yeah I know, we all love those) where a customer picks all the apps he wants to install, have the installer say something to the effect of "all those extra apps are gonna cost $xxx enter credit card info here:"
More crap solely aimed at pissing off customers. If Microsoft did not want business they would have adopted the "RealNetworks" model of customer irritation long ago. They do, so they didn't. Sorry it pisses you off. Sorry commercial vendors do not port to your OS. But hey, even if you do manage to put MS out of business they are still not going to write for your OS. They're going to go out of business right next to MS because the fact of the matter is that you people don't like to pay for software and have proven that you'll do nearly anything to avoid doing so.
For the case of F/OSS, tack on a clause that apps where the client can obtain source, and fix it himself (or audit it before using), is not requred to be warrantied by the author.
Well it's good to see that there will still be paying jobs for software engineers. Pity they'll all be maintenance. Also a shame for joe business owner when he needs to have something fixed or added and finally realizes that even though he's been using 'free' software that the 40 hours of development work he's about to fund would have covered a years worth of closed source that most likely would have done what he wanted out of the box.
How about this as an alternative: Govenment stays the hell out of it. Seems to me that the windows monopoly is either a myth or the people who swear that unix already won the internet (bind? apache? inn? sendmail?) or the database market (oracle? db2?) are full of shit. Which is it? Does MS own the world or do they not? Methinks they don't. And with the goverment out of it if a company wants to sell a media player they had better make one worth paying the money for.