Slashdot Mirror
MS To Offer Windows Sans WMP, If EU So Orders
PSwim writes "Microsoft has said it will remove Media Player from Window, if ordered by the EU this week. The 'Windows-Lite'
version will only be available in Europe. Best quote from the article involves its refusal to release networking documentation: '"The Commission says Linux would disappear" if Microsoft did not grant access to its documentation, Smith claimed. "But Linux is alive and well and I don't know any person at Linux or any Linux programmers who share the Commission's view."'"
Who cares if the commission's view is shared by the OSS crew. Their ruling should be final and Microsoft should comply in good faith if they want to continue to trade in the EU.
They'll probably get chance to appeal the descision but I doubt the ruling will be overturned. Personally, I'm sick of them appealing on grounds they should have brought up earlier in the process. I think that if you appeal in a corporate case such as this and you lose the damages should be increased. You can justify this by lost interest due to the money sitting for in Microsoft's bank and not the EUs bank account for duration of the appeal process plus a surcharge for wasting everybody's time
Simon.
Internet Explorer gone, but it's too well embedded. However, with all its vulnerabilities I wonder if Microsoft will try to change this. Oh wait... *reality strikes* How long before the next version of WMP is too well embedded to be removed?
--
Given the other option is to stop selling Windows in the EU, this is not very surprising.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Microsoft has protested in the past that unbundling elements of Windows would be difficult and could even damage its operating system.
hm... i do not mean to flame against microsoft (yet another time), but wtf? why and how should a media player damage the os, if decently programmed? to me, it sounds sensible to separate the operating-system from the applications built upon it, not coupling them to an absurde degree. well, from the point of view "it will be easier to distribute both products that way", it is understandable, of course, but shouldn't a clear design weigh more than marketing advantage? mark the should, which is - sorrowfully - the keyword here.
ah, and by the way... what will microsoft do? if i was them, i'd offer a network-based installation of wmp, which is (semi)automatically triggered after the installation of windows. thus, they do not ship wmp with the os, but effectively bundle it in 90% of all installations.
The rest of the world would continue to use the full version of Windows, and it encouraged content developers to continue to encode music and other digital products in its Windows media format.
simply cute. encouraging developers to use a proprietary codec (i hope i am correct) to create content, when you need to additionally install software for that codec. *hm* a different approach than the one i outlined above, but an effective one, too.
though i have to say, if i was content provider, i'd see absolutely no advantage in using wmp if the player is not bundled with the os, only the drawback of lock-in by microsoft.
just my 2cent
If you don't learn from history,
then you are an idiot by definition.
--- Vadim Yasinovsky
I've never understood what's wrong with Microsoft having WMP in Windows. Any operating system should come with a decent media player, and WMP is one. I mean its not perfect, its not as stripped down as some better ones, but hey, its better than Realplayer, and why in the world would the average user want to have to download a seperate program to simply see a news broadcast? Most Linux distros come with mplayer--is that a monopoly?
If anything's bad, isn't it their proprietary codecs they try to push in the media industry?
I'd rather see them have the WMA/WMV codecs excluded and if a user plays such things, s/he gets directed to a Microsoft web site where they can be downloaded.
Not allowing a stupid media player just seems silly to me.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Yes, and some will then install Quicktime and iTunes for Windows and finally go for a shiny G5 iMac.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The company had "spent millions" so that it could meet the court's judgment, he added, suggesting that development work has already been done to offer a version of Windows in Europe without the WMP software.
Removing a media player from an OS costs MILLIONS! I feel like making a joke but this is just too ridiculous. The sad thing is probably many non-techies believe these blatant lies. And I don't care what expenses they dream up (testing, lawyers, still more lawyers, cost of diminished monopoly power), this is pure BS.
Well, we all know better than that of course; why, just yesterday a Harvard professor jumped on the bandwagon warning that the current patent system inhibits, rather than encourages, innovation. How is Microsoft any different? When everyone knows M$ will come out on top in any battle it chooses to fight, the incentive to try to create something Redmond might want to compete against drops to zero. But if the EU succeeds in putting Microsoft in its place, that will tell a lot of software companies (and VCs!) that their products might finally have a chance of competing on their own merits.
Oh, and "privilege some special interests"? It's funny how one company can be so bad if it gets some help from the government (the criterion for "special interest"), but another company is beyond reproach if it has an advantage that everyone is already dependent on its products.
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
The proposed EU remedy is foolish because it does not address the heart of the problem, namely, that Microsoft is using their Windows monopoly to enter related markets (in this case media distribution via WMP software and the WMV format). Dropping WMP from Windows in Europe won't hinder Microsoft from entering those markets worldwide. And most people in Europe will download WMP anyway since it will be free and most video content will require its use due to the prevalance of the WMV format. The only effective remedy is to require Microsoft to open source the WMV format (and possibly the WMV player as well) so that the user's choice of operating system is completely independent of their choice of media player/format.
Interoperability does not truly depend on MS granting access to its documentation; in most cases it is the result of some succesful reverse-engineering. I bet MS would love to put an end to that. The statement "grant access to [the] documentation" is right but should be more specific: "not deny interoperability by means of secrecy or patents or other means"... The Commission touches on an important point, even if they worded it funnily.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
but the proliferation of Linux (especially in the desktop arena) does depend a great deal on interoperability (Samba for instance)
That's a bad example, I think. I don't follow samba closely, but I have the general notion that (A) Samba has been implemented without any documentation from MS, and (B) the Samba team generally have a better understanding of the behavior of the MS samba stack than do Microsoft programmers.
Next?
Linux can have the best word processor with the finest document file format, but if Word cannot read it, it will never be widely adopted. Remember that version of Word (98 I think) that produced files which could not be read by earlier versions of Word? Everybody bitched about it, and Microsoft finally gave in a made a plugin for earlier versions to read these files. You can be sure they never made that mistake again...
Similarly, you will often find Windows boxes in even the most Linux-friendly offices. Many applications are only available on Windows. For that reason, we need Samba capability. It is not so important for Linux to stand on its own, but it sure as hell makes the transition from Windows to Linux a lot easier.
The point is: most people and especially businesses cannot afford to 'stay in their own world' as you put it. People who might be interested in Linux are not starting to use computers from scratch, they will in most cases have to ransition from Windows, and will want to continue to communicate with their Windows-using friends.
This is not off-topic at all, it is the heart of the matter that is hidden underneath this silliness about shipping Windows with no media player. There is nothing wrong per sé with selling software using closed and protected protocols and file formats. Microsoft however is (mis)using closed protocols and file formats, together with their virtual monopoly in the OS and Office suite markets, to make sure everyone stays locked into the Windows solution. They do this by making the transition to Linux exceptionally painful, and by trying to ostracise Linux users from their Windows-using friends (or from their computers and data, at least). That is why the Commission should demand open and freely usable standards from Microsoft instead of demanding a WMP-free OS; not because open standards are nice and cute, but because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly and is mis-using it and closed standards to keep out competitors like Linux.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
This is the fundamental problem with Linux adoption. How can decision makers (read: CEO's, CIO's and government officials) make sound decisions on the operating system choice of their infrastructure when they don't even understand how the product was made? From the series of summaries I've read on Slashdot about Munich's switch it seems to be much more about using something that is non-Windows than it is about using something that is open source. While it might help the cause, I personally think this is the wrong reason you should switch to an open source OS. Linux should be migrated to because you believe in the way it is developed and because it is great product for investment placed into it. How can these guys be assured that Linux is the way to go if they don't even understand how it is fundamentally built?
No, it really wouldn't. I'd bet that your average PC user doesn't appreciate the issues with IE. Many probably don't even know what a "browser" is, they just know to click this button for "the Internet" (not to be confused with e-mail).
Choice is not always a good thing. For average people without the time or inclination to learn the finer points of a subject, a single "good enough" option is often better than a choice. For people who do have the inclination to learn more, the choice is always there anyway, as the fact that I'm typing this in Firefox testifies.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.