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."

7 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. I'd fine them a dime for each security problem... by DocSnyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  2. Removing the Player Isn't the Good Part! by Jameth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  3. Re:What about linux distributions?? by ebassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:What about Apple? by rlp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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]
  5. Market for video playing software by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    The same could be said for browsers, word processors, graphical tools, video editing software... hell, you could say the same for opererating systems: the average computer buyer doesn 't want the hassle of having to install Windows, just give him Windows right out of the box. What is that you say? There are alternatives to Windows? Well I never...

    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...
  6. Re:True by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. ;(