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.
"...I don't know any person at Linux..."
WTF?
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
[...]Linux would disappear if Microsoft did not grant access to its documentation[...]
:D :P
Muhahahahaha ! Ha-ha-ha ! Ha-...ha-...ha-ha-ha !
Sorry guys, I can't help myself, I just had a giggling spasm
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
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
The term crippleware usually applies for software which has voluntarily been cut-off in order to force the buyers to upgrade for more functionalities.
This is, of course, only if Microsoft actually intends to offer an upgrade scheme (they could just force the Windows Lite purchasers to acquire a full XP license at full cost)...
Now, after this annoucement, it becomes obvious that Microsoft is entering a new era in which they will be forced to lighten their products under the hostile eyes of the trade police...
What willfollow ?
Well, they'll have to cut costs in order to remain competitive in this regard.
I guess, something just broke in Microsoft and it's time for the new Norton-likes to come back and propose better add-ons than the ones that were forcibly integrated into Windows...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
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?
I'm having a press conference tomorrow where I will announce that I will pay the speeding ticket if the court so orders. I just want to make sure they understand that going into the appeal hearing.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
I predict Microsoft will make it's prediction that Windows will be crippled w/o the player come true by putting something into the software that annoys the end users.
First, it's the EC and their stance that "Linux would disappear" - this makes me a bit happy, 'cause it means they'vre probably tried to understand what the fsck the case is about. On the other hand, it gives us a hint as to how much we can expect our politicians to actually understand about these matters. I really don't think, though, that it's too much to ask from an assistant to a member of the Commission to just explain that Linux is on more hardware than just Samba servers.
The other funny thing, which is absolutely hilarious, is that Microsoft's general counsel Brad Smith doesn't "know any person at Linux or any Linux programmers who share the Commission's view."
What, I know several people at Linux, they say it's a great place to work and they have a beautiful campus and stuff...
:wq!
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!
One must admire MS for the spin of this question.
MS got everyone to babble about install-options (WMP yes/no?) instead of the real thing at stake:
Open formats e.g ISO standards or privately owned formats?
Hello, everyone, it isn't about WMP yes/no. It's about standard formats with competition or not. Did you get it now?
-- From Denmark
"If you won't play with my toys the way I want you to..."
Seems to sum up the Microsoft business strategy rather well.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Remove WMP from Windows...
Wow.
I don't suppose anyone will be surprised to find the link to the WMP download presented in bold, flashing red letters among the list of "High Priority" updates (formerly merely "optional software updates") each and every time a European user runs "Windows Update."
Legislative micromanagement of Microsoft's stack of software is futile. Gate's and crew are quietly snickering as they squeak past another round of legal nonsense with another pointless concession.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
"Microsoft has said it will remove Media Player from Window, if ordered by the EU this week."
Wow. I always thought Windows had its limitations, but apparently you can only open one window at a time with this cut-down version! Hmmm, which one to open...
More like... nerdular nerdence!
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.
Secondly, if Microsoft can fuss, whine, cry, etc, over how taking some component out is "too hard" and would cripple Windows (mind you, switching the machine on seems to do that just fine) then how are they capable of removing the media player just like that? That, in itself, should send up huge bright red warning flags that Microsoft is, and quite probably always has been, lying to the courts about how "difficult" the process of removing something is.
Third, by putting some psychological pressure on Windows developers to use the Microsoft in-house format anyway, it seems clear Microsoft is attempting to cripple any efforts to switch to other formats. Pointing to things like Apple's iTunes doesn't help the argument, as that is a very carefully-crafted niche market that nobody can step into or out of. It's not in competition with anything, and as such, cannot be listed as a competing format. DUH!
Last, but by no means least, server docs would be nice. Claiming that nobody would be interested in them and nobody has asked for them is at best disingeneous (Microsoft doesn't tend to release anything it doesn't absolutely need to, and even then it's a struggle) and at worst an outright lie (I'm willing to bet at least one WINE developer has asked to see networking and media low-level documentation, and I'm willing to bet they got refused, too).
Sorry, it's hard to feel much pity for Microsoft over this. Their entire case is built up out of mistruths, scams, shams and ignorance. (Some of the ignorance is even their own.) Until they learn to "play nice", they really should accept that it is only by the generosity of the EU and other Governments that they are allowed to play at all.
Marketing is not a right, it is a privilige. That is why, for example, in the US you have business licenses. Despite abusing that privilege, Microsoft is being told that they can carry on. With some relatively minor restrictions. IMHO, that is exceedingly generous. And given their past record, quite likely too generous.
Sooner or later, someone is going to get tough. Unless a volcano in Washington State erupts first and buries Microsoft HQ in ash*. I'd feel sorry for the innocents inside (assuming any were innocent) but it would save the world, which could be quite nice.
*Volcanos are generally compliant with UNIX98 standards, starting up into ash. However, they are known to have a buggy IPC implementation. On failing to negotiate a handshake with the surrounding geography, volcanos are apt to core-dump.
Only if by "face-to-face negotiations to tease out technological nuances" he means "coercion".
Is there a term for FUD so transparently unlikely that it causes no F, U, or D? Anti-FUD. The inverse function of FUD. RAW: Reassurance And Wellbeing.
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
I don't see any problem with allowing MS to bundle Windows Media Player. I'm sure aspects of it are used all over the place, e.g. Thumbnail previews of videos, descriptions and summaries in the properties tags. If they want to provide all this functionality they are either going to have to allow:
A) 3rd party providers to provide this information for the OS
B) To have a cut down version of media player which cannot play movies by itself but serves this info.
I'd rather have neither and I'm sure Microsoft don't want 3rd party applications providing information for their summary boxes as they might be buggy etc and cause exceptions...
Airbus don't want people to use other peoples Engines in their aircraft because Airbus don't think it is safe to do so. Is that a monopoly???
Microsoft has said it will remove Media Player from Window, if ordered by the EU this week and will bundle in a media player it calls "Yet Another Media Player" which is said to look completely different from WMP. It will have a different skin.
Uh, why should you be able to sell a computer with whatever crap you want on it? Windows is not yours to change.
And let's face it. When vendors have tried to 'customize' Windows or add their own tools to it, it has always sucked. Ever tried using a brand new Packard Bell or Dell? You always end up with a ton of crap installed that takes up about twenty icons in the tray. In the worst scenario, you end up with some horrendously lame media player or no-name virus scanner written by a drunk Chinese five year old embedded into your computer. Vendor customizations suck!
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.
"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."'"
;-) or a programmer, but I AM responsible for switching our companies main old crappy (SCO) machines to Redhat. I use Linux since uhm, the Minix days.
.net and JAVA software is lacking (Mono is not nearly complete, and is exactly fighting this catch-up game, JAVA is a nifty SUN Trap) and MS file formats could potentially be 100% closed in a single update (Yes MS DOES hold your DATA ransom) Managers will always take the save route. Or at the very best, change will happen very very slowly.
Well, I do. Granted, Im no "person at Linux" (WTF? does FSF member count?
-Without- access to documented API's, compatibility battles are always going to be a "catch-up" game.
Meaning MS can leveradge its closed fileformats and closed API's to keep a lock on its customers.
Even the much applauded SAMBA (Love it, love it) is mostly reversed engeneered, and often has to deal with changed Windows OS behaviour between releases and SP's.
To get out of this deadlock, people can either massively switch away from MS (unlikely, but possible) or have MS open up its secrets, and level the playing ground. Only THEN can Linux and MS compete on the one level that mnatters: "innovation".
No matter how good Gnome and KDE have gotten, if the
"/Dread"
Many people seem to be saying, "Gosh! Removing WMP from Windows seems so harsh! This is silly!", or words to that effect.
If Microsoft wants everybody to stream using its media formats, it will want to ensure that Windows Media Player is installed on as many computers as possible. Obviously.
The point here is that Microsoft owns Windows. Microsoft adds to Windows what it desires, and what is most beneficial to Microsoft itself. People usually use what comes installed with the operating system (IE, WMP), and once you're used to one thing you're less likely to switch (as we've seen with Internet Explorer).
Microsoft gains an unfair advantage by doing this, and there is very little competition at this level.
Microsoft finds it attrocious that people have suggested adding Real Player (and other competing apps) to Windows. Microsoft knows that doing this would take away its advantage - if it didn't, why would there be such a big issue? Ok, Microsoft may say that it would cause users more hassle by having to download WMP; but, Microsoft has also said that it doesn't understand the fuss about bundling WMP, people can still download and install Real Player easily enough. Well, in that case, why not remove WMP and let people choose what they want to install?
I expect that if WMP was removed, Microsoft would add a pop-up window as soon as you run Windows for the first time, asking you to download and install it.
The same cannot be said of Open Source apps on a Linux DISTRIBUTION. Linux is not manufactured by one company, other companies create distributions that contain various competing apps.
If Microsoft open-sourced its file formats, and ensured that it would not use any patents surrounding them to limit their use in any way, this would certainly help things.
If Microsoft got other companies to create Windows distributions in the same way as with Linux, this would also help.
Software choice?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
This will harm what I'm doing. I would like very much to rely on WMP being installed. If I can't do this, it means I'll have to tell people to install it, and that means fewer people will use my products. Ironically they involve making your own media player using the media technologies in WMP as a base, so it's actually stifling competition. :-)
Isn't that called DOS?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I fully support your statements, but you missed one important aspect of the Microsoft-OEM relationship, and that is support. When MS hands over an OEM license, they don't just relinquish the liabilities of shipping a box and manual, they also loose any requirement to support the OS.
This is valid, since the OEM could've put anything on the machine after being received from MS. But, it also means that the Vendor is now liable to handle support for its devices. Theoretically, the hand-over of the software should be the end of the agreement. If Dell doesn't want to ship media player for whatever reason, they don't have to.
That all doesn't matter though. The second Dell starts getting phone calls over people not being able to play mp3's or watch movies, the crowds will be swarming. I agree with an earlier argument, it is too late to fix what they've done before.
What we have to do now is INFORM our governments of anything Microsoft does BEFORE the damage is incurred. Imagine MS's faces being held back from releasing Longhorn due to potential Monopolistic abuses in the system. That's where any of these 'Microfot is a monopoly, we'll fix it' scenerios holds any real world hopes.
This argument could have been the same for Microsoft with MS Movie maker. What happens if they decide to sink Adobe by investing tons of money into Their movie maker. Today's Media Player is tomorrows Antivirus, Movie Makers, networking protocols, web standards, etc.. There's no stopping them if we let them run free. If you hadn't guessed already, Bill gates is spoofed as a borg for a reason.
Bye!
SMB has actually been documented by MS.
From The future of CIFS by Jelmer Vernooij of the Samba team:
2.2 The NFS/CIFS marketing war
During the internet hype in the nineties, Sun and Microsoft got in a fight about which remote file system API was going to make it. Sun was promoting NFS, Microsoft was promoting SMB.
In order to get SMB supported by other vendors, Microsoft did a couple of things:
Samba even got donations from Microsoft during this period, including funding for trips to conferences and MSDN donations. Microsoft developers were encouraged to work with Samba developers to get a working implementation of a SMB server and client on Unix.
Microsoft won the war. CIFS became the standard (for LANs, at least). After this, they lost interest in having other vendors support CIFS. Rather, they tried to get everybody to use their products.
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.
Well, herring, eggs, sausage, and herring. It's got not much herring in it.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Thank you for installing Microsoft Windows XP (EU Edition).
Windows is now checking Microsoft's website for updates and new features.........
New Features Available! Please choose what you want to download:
1. Windows Media Player. This is required if you want to play MP3s, watch videos or DVDs.
As the original writer of the submission you so eloquently call "shitty," I felt the need to respond a bit.
You did read the article, didn't you?
I wish people would read the article and think about it before posting (flaming). Then again, I'm starting to be kind of old around here.
But Linux is alive and well and I don't know any person at Linux
I'm sure they imagine a giant L-shaped building somewhere in Helsinki, where foreign-speaking communists plot to find new ways to pirate MP3s.
Where is this "Linux" place? Is it like Disneyland? Can I take the kid and the dogs and hang out?
Probably because Microsoft has been shown in the past to threaten or punish vendors (that pesky monopoly thing again) that do things that MS doesn't like, say try to include a second OS on the computer.
Forcing MS to remove WMP is probably the only way to guarantee that vendors are able to not include it without facing repurcussions.
The ultimate plays for Madden 2006
If Microsoft release accurate documentation, it will both handicap their efforts to lock people out and dilute their ability to turn everything they touch into an "IP" black hole.
That latter is kind of a Midas touch, short term spectacular but sooner or later everything's turned to pyrites and then Midas starves in a cold hard house full of statues.
This attitude toward full and accurate publication is true for some things already; but when Shorthorn gets its WinFS and a few more bells and whistles the absence of documentation would be crippling for any competitors hoping to get a toehold in markets currently 0wn3rz3d by Bill "your computer is My Computer" Gates - if, by that time, there still are any. The Linux revolution appears to be snowballing at an unprecedented rate right now.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Kinda like MSN-messenger. Trying to remove that crap is hell-on-earth(tm) as well.
I more or less did all that stuff you mentioned + thourough registry disection. In addition I replaced all the executables with dummy-files (rundll32.exe), just for the sake of apperance.
Didn't help one bit. A quick visit to www.hotmail.com with MSIE, and wow, magically MSN-messenger is up and running again.
I bet the Windows-core has all these "services", including fronends, embedded, and any attempt to remove the executables will be overridden by with LOCAL-SYSTEM authority, unless Windows is fooled to believe the genuine files are still there.
Someone please inform me how this is done...
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
I remeber a few years ago in Microsoft's Antitrust lawsuit they stated that they could not remove Internet Explorer and other things as it would make the OS unstable as they were built-in.
Now they are offereing XP Embedded and stripped down versions to other countries.
This sounds like perjury to me. They lied to the courts becasue they are doing exactly what they said was impossable. I just don't get it.
I am a IE to Firefox convert (back in the day I was a Netscape to IE convert) but I wish I could remove or totally disable IE. I would love to type in a URL in a window and have it launch Firefox instead of becoming IE and viewing the page that way.