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."
...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.
Why on earth wouldn't I want Windows to open Office documents by default? Just install MS Office with Windows as well, it'll be easier for my mum.
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?
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
... because Apple is not a monopoly, period.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Why doesn't Apple get any heat for including iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, QuickTime, Safari, etc?
Because Apple doesn't control 90+ percent of the desktop. Because Apple isn't trying to leverage an OS monopoly into other market segments. Because Apple doesn't have a history of trying to "cut off the oxygen supply" to their competitors through use of monopoly.
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Each has there own use, but this has got to be the most retarded lawsuit i've EVER heard of."
I think you've totally missed the point of this. Certainly I'm not arguing that basic sound support shouldn't be a part of an Operaring System but Media Player goes far beyond that, it is a fully featured Application.
Other companies would like to sell these kind of applications to people and make money out of it however with MS giving it away for nothing to 90% of computer users they don't have hope of selling anything.
You cannot buy Windows without Media Player, so you do not have the opportunity to compare it's price and value against other similar products.
From Microsofts point of view the current situation is very nice for them; Media Player is installed on 90% of computer users PC's, Media Player uses it's own proprietry formats, downloading music is becoming big business - suppliers are very tempted to use Media Player formats because of it's market penetration, Microsoft can call the shots.
From everyone else's point of view this is clearly a case of Microsoft using it's monopoly in the O/S system market to influence and gain control of other areas.
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 can, however, use another program to read the text files that I've created with Notepad, use my extremely simple math formulae on another, competing calculator program ( heck, I can even port that sucker over to Linux with little trouble ), or set my new taskbar clock to the same time by using the system time, like I always have, but I cannot use that DRM enable .wmp file with just any media player: thus, no lock-in and another troll bites the dust. ;(
And another one's gone, and another one's gone...
Oh, sorry.
Put identity in the browser.
Nor can I take a DRM encoded AAC file, nor a Realplayer file, and play it in just any player. But I know that Winamp will be able to play DRM encoded WMP files.
Don't want DRM lock-in then don't buy from the music stores that sell them with DRM, which are becoming fewer and far between. But even if you stay MP3 or ogg, all three of the player will play them just fine.
So how is one a troll pointing out a simple fact that you can still install other programs if you so choose?
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.