Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft EU Monopoly Appeal Thrown Out
smnicoll writes "The European Court of First Instance has thrown out Microsoft's appeal to have penalties for the abuse of monopoly suspended, reports BBC News Online.
'Microsoft's application for interim measures is therefore dismissed in its entirety,'
The court's statement said. 'The evidence adduced by Microsoft is not sufficient to show that implementation of the remedies imposed by the Commission might cause serious and irreparable damage.' The commission's case is mainly focused on Microsoft's integration of Windows Media Player into the operationg system and the effects that has on the ability of Real Networks and Apple to get their rival players used." Similar stories at Bloomberg, CNET, and Reuters (via CNN).
They got where they are through greed and deceit, they deserve to have no mercy given to them. Serves 'em right.
FP?
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
MS was unable to comment because of their shock that they were unable to buy a court.
A court that cannot be bought, bullied or bored to death by incessant litigation.
If only we as capable of seeing bulls*!t for what it is.
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtm
has some of the better comments from the bigwigs at Redmond..
My favourite being:
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
Wow, it sure took them long enough. I can't believe the EU has been around for so long, just itching to prove their significance, without actually doing anything. They sure showed the dirty, nasty US though.
Surely a media player is an integral part of the operating system, just like a web browser, some card games, and a paper clip.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Can you imagine a Beowulf claster of these courts?
Certainly clarifies the air doesn't it?
As I have read in several other articles, this isn't so much a hit against MS as it is the business model they use...bundling stuff right into the OS install.
While we are essentially creatures who seek the lowest cost/benefits of any transaction, this decision changes some of the dynamics of software choice.
I hope some OEM's follow through and install different Media players...even though RN may be just as intrusive and unpleasant.
people actually find Windows Media Player a threat?
i would be more concerned about the integration of IE into windows but then again that is just my opinion
I just can't think of a penalty that could cause Microsoft "serious and irreparable damage"... Help me out here, folks!
...Does anybody (and I mean in the large market of "normal" users) really want a Windows without Media Player? Does anybody care?
Of course, what might matter is that the judgements of the Court creates a precedent, but here in Europe, laws are different, and precedents don't carry as much weight as in the US.
Ander
@=
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The "greed and deceit" of microsoft pales in comparison to the issues governments on both sides of the pond should be attacking.
It just seems like a waste of time and so 5 years ago. Market has changed, economy has changed and believe it or not there is competition and i don't think any of these lawsuits had anything to do with building the open market we have today.
Remember, this lawsuit and appeal will only affect people who choose to support microsoft products. This doesn't make linux or apple more prevelant. This doesn't stop contracts with vendors and this doesn't do much to open windows up.
I don't get it how the governments on both sides have attacked microsoft for being closed, proprietary and "cheating" the system with the hooks and features they only know about yet companies like SCO are suing for billions to try and make sure that it's code remains proprietary, remains closed and remains controlled.
doesn't make sense
Hasn't it been 120 days already, or do they get to start the clock now? (again)
Here's an idea...
If you don't want Microsoft to have a monopoly... Don't plan to hand them 20 year software patent legal monopolies on a plate!
Corrupt idiots.
YES to European Unity. NO to the present EU !
Is this decision as big as it seems. Either investors (a notoriously jumpy sort) have a good reason to believe the stock will continue to rise or the news isn't as big as one would have thought.
If the eds had used my submitted write-up instead (mumble, mutter) then you'd have known that this is only the second-highest court in the EU. Although the ruling was pretty damning, it's still possible that MS will appeal to the European Court of Justice, who could overturn the decision. Fortunately, given the feeling everywhere else in Europe, this doesn't seem likely, but the air isn't completely clean yet.
BTW, if it stands, this is a hit against MS on two major counts: the original ruling required them to open up various information for interoperability purposes, and to produce a version of Windows without Media Player integrated.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
With this and the stay of execution on software patents, anyone buying me pressies will have a tough act to follow :)
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
However, the remedies being upheld is a good thing. This may put a bigger wrench in M$ plans by not only preventing the desktop audio / video market from closing up, but also HDTV and DVDs. M$ has had its eye on all three and the desktop monopoly could have done much more harm if HDTV over IP were to become available only via WMP.
Let's hope this support of the March decision gives open codecs like Vorbis and Dirac a boost all around.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I could only imagine the body count if we had gone to war with microsoft!
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
Quicktime is tightly integrated with Mac OS X. Does this mean Apple has committed an equally horrible crime? I find it ludicrous that this is an issue, as long as you can install other players. I frequently use Windows Media Player on the Mac, and I guess people also frequently use Quicktime on Windows. As long as the two are mutually incompatible, this is going to continue to be the case.
In fact, most operating systems come with a bunch of integrated technologies. I fail to see why this is bad.
I will say what will happen from this ruling !!! NOTHING !!!!! MS will just go on and appeal with the EU, while it will try to start and settle this matter out of court, and then will continue its businees practices as usual. Note that any company/organisation that are/were suing MS are nowadays quickly settling out of court or else the case is being dragged till it is settled out of court ;-)
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
I didn't "just start with a negative view of Microsoft". Many of the posters here, myself included, work in IT and have developed out negative view of Microsoft over many long years of service packs, software patches, virus outbreaks, crashes and downtime.
... ?
It is *our* view and we cherish it. Doesn't it ever surprise you that there aren't nearly as many opponents of Open Source? Wonder why that is
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
I'm so used to bad news. Especially in America. ;)
Lets see how that opening of the code part of the order goes.
Found guilty, penalised by the judgement of the court, and they still think they can "come to an agreement?". It's like a murderer being sentenced to 20 years in jail, who yet "still remains confident of coming to an agreement" with the prosecutor!
No sympathy for them at all. They deserve that and more. Weird such a big company with so many people who absolutely hate and despise them. You don't find that many people hating GE.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Agreed. Back before Microsoft was going through all of this antitrust business, another program being included in the operating system would just be considered an added bonus. Don't get me wrong, I hate Microsoft, but why the hell are we focusing on things that are so ridiculous when there are a LOT of things that Microsoft does that are really worth antitrust litigation? If apple was ever to break out of the niche market, would their inclusion of iTunes and Quicktime be considered abuse of Monopoly? Everyone seems to be fine with it now.
In the past I think this type of action hurt us more than helping us. We complained that Internet Explorer was shipped with windows, and now it's been completely integrated into windows, justifying arguements against removing it. Will the same sort of thing happen with Media Player?
It's really hard to come up with a "positive view" of Microsoft, after you get screwed by them. Over and over again. No, they are not a "almost-monopoly". They are a monopoly. That is a fact that has been upheld in a court of law. they are criminals, and I don't want to give my hard-earned money to a bunch of criminals
Why exactly should I have "positive view" about them? They are a monopoly, they use illegal methods to maintain their monopoly. They use their OS-monopoly to gain monopoly in other areas (which is illegal), they charge too much for their crappy, virus-ridden software, they use lies and deceit to undermine competition, they push closed proprietary standards, while trying to squash open standards and they stifle innovation.
Pray tell: what "positive view" should I have? Well, the mice they make are OK, I'll grant you that.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I wonder what Microsoft gains in fighting over this case? While court can prohibit integration of MsPlayer with windows, they can't force microsoft to sell it. They can still make it available for download for free and everyone will still choose it.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Why is it that everytime people decide to attack Windows Media Player they always wave around Real Media as some sort of championed alternative?
Its one of the worst pieces of software I've ever seen in my life, its ugly encoding, and its almost impossible to convert...
At least WMP (using the old mplayer2) is compact, quick, and doesn't crash things.
While I wouldn't mind seeing Quicktime preinstalled if Apple would drop the "buy now" crap from it and make it full screen, having Real preinstalled would just make life ugly... one more reason to need to format every OEM PC out of the box.
Weird thing is that there will be plenty of (dumb?) users complaining bout the removal of Medial Player from Windows. The main deal about that is not because Media Player comes with Windows, is that Media Player actually reproduces formats from its market competitors, not all, but some. Usually you just install Real Player if you want live streaming, and since Windows Media is becoming more and more famous, you don't need another player anyway. I DON'T use Media Player, but foobar. Ok, freewill, you choose what you want, and if you don't want Media Player, well that leaves you with about 3 players installed on your pc. But that's up to you, and also, this is my opinion.
gui bregolin
I hate Real Networks. It's been a bloated piece of garbage until recently. And these new "options" are just annoying.
When Winamp began intergrating a browser into their media player, I hated it. Many companies have done the same now, and I have to wonder if anyone uses these options.
I guess I just don't understand which company this monopoly is effecting. Most sites I go to have either WMP or Quicktime for movie trailers, and Realplayer or WMP for audio. Is it unfair for Linux not to include WMP? Or Apple to bulk Quicktime with OS X ? I'm not a MS advocate, but I guess I just don't see this as a big deal.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
Wrong! The competition is NOT incompetent. The competition is composed of developers who produce a product and THEN have to go to distribution channels and "sell" their product to distributors...OEM's maybe.
But if every distributors is roped/welded to MS, they are NOT going to be able to reach a wider audience very easily, even if the developer's product is better than MS' version.
It's all about distribution, overcoming the "network effect" and us comsumers (who max our benefits, while minimizing cost to ourselves as individuals).
MS uses micro-economics to leverage their products in a macro-economic world. If they offer products bundled with the OS, then almost by default, individuals will use them (benefit), since the user doen't have to expend any energy to find an alternative (cost).
It's not incompetence, it's distribution channels...
FPO
I'm guessing the market believes that no matter what the world will throw at Microsoft, they are more than capable of deflecting. So even in defeat, Microsoft will just roll this one off -- no one cares what happens in Europe anyway.
don't forget greece and italy.
And Apple stole Xerox's...
Because most Open Source software is a pain in the ass to use thats why.
In the case of Media player v. Real, Real has to work harder to differntiate its product from MS to get people to actually use it. It's been my experience that Real hasn't had a big problem getting their client onto people's computers.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
"That just shows the incompetence of the competition. And it always goes back to "Microsoft stole Mac's code". Uhh sure, that was like 10 years ago"
I'm not sure if you should be modded +1 interesting or -1 redundant.
I am going to assume that you are a) young or b) not a veteran in the software industry to make such a statement. This is not an ad-hominem attack.
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
Integrating media player into windows is an illegal extension of monopoly? Are they kidding?
Is including notepad illegal too? Doesn't that make it more difficult for makers of text editors to compete?
For that matter, isn't bundling the interface with device drivers illegal too?
Here's a thought:
If the software is a player or viewer, i.e. does not let you create content, then it should be bundled into the operating system because its inefficient to make customers chase are around after it.
If the software is productive (i.e. it lets the user produce content (like word processors, spreadsheets, photoshop, etc.)) then it shouldn't be bundled.
Maybe if Apple didn't make Quicktime launch at startup I might want to keep it on my computer.
THEY CALL ME PASTABAGEL
The "greed and deceit" of microsoft pales in comparison to the issues governments on both sides of the pond should be attacking.
Not if you're one of the tens of thousands Microsoft's greed and deceit has harmed financially.
I'm so sick of the fallacy that because there is [insert some terrible world problem here], we should turn a blind eye to [insert lessor injustice here]. I'm even more sick of the ugly (all too American, these days) mentality that if an injustice doesn't affect you, you shouldn't worry about it or care (and indeed, if an injustice benefits you, however indirectly, you should somehow support it). Enough of that nonsense already!
Injustice is injustice, whether it affects Linux or not. Harm is harm, and it should be fought everywhere. Yes, software patents need to be stopped in Europe and overturned in the US. Yes, SCO's executives should be in prison. And yes, Microsoft should pay the piper for their years of anti-competative, greedy and deceitful behavior, irrespective of what the market has done to try and mitigate the consiquences of said behavior. "The market" may or may not have adapted (it is highly debatable that there's much of a free market at all when it comes to PC desktops), but certainly those who were run out of business and had their livelihoods ruined by Microsoft's illegal activities didn't have that option, and Microsoft owes society, and arguably those individuals, some reparations in addition to ceasing and desisting in their behavior.
A child misbehaves, and a decent parent won't just require the child stops, they'll punish the child in some way as a disincentive for the child starting up again the moment the parent's back is turned.
Microsoft is one big ugly ill-behaved child that needs a good, hard spanking and a great deal of corrective behavior.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
s/operationg/operating/g
You were beaten; like a recalcitrant mule!
If only they could go after that dastardly Apple company for QuickTime. Or even KDE for Kmplayer...
How nice to discover more and more about the EU, every single day, because of this kind of news.
Now at least we all know that the EU has its own Court of First Instance. Let's all be grateful to Microsoft!
While I fully agree that removing WMP from Windows does not cause "serious and irrepairable damage", I still find the issue quite tricky. Obviously, Microsoft bundling applications with their dominant operating system gives them a strong advantage over would-be competitors, but should we really prohibit them from shipping applications with it?
Do you also prohibit Apple from shipping apps with Mac OS X? Or Mandrakesoft with Mandrake? Or do you only prohibit Microsoft from doing so, because their OS is so ubiquitous?
And what applications are allowed to be shipped? If none, what constitutes an application, and what is part of the OS? Is the GUI part of the OS? Or the shell? Do you allow certain applications, but not others? Where do you draw the line? Shouldn't text editors, web browsers, mail clients and media players be bundled as a matter of course these days? And what about office software?
I, myself, believe that Microsoft should be allowed to ship whatever the hack they want with Windows. It's their product, after all. If you don't like the browser, install a different one. If you can't, that's a disadvantage of the OS that you have to consider.
As for all the companies whose applications have been pushed out by Microsoft's, tough luck. You couldn't get your software bundled with Windows and couldn't compel users to switch. You simply lost. That's life.
Yes, Microsoft is powerful. Yes, they have stiffled innovation. Yes, they have killed competitors by providing and bundling their own, often inferior products. This is why the Windows platform is in such an abysmal state these days. Other platforms, where innovation has flowed freely, are flourishing. GNU/Linux, the BSDs, Solaris, and OSX are better than ever.
It's not like people _have_ to use Microsoft's products. They choose to. The alternatives have been there.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It's a bad sign when you have four times as many "freaks" as "fans".
This decision can (and will) be attacked in court by Microsoft. The BIG part of this decision is not the WMP. Quote: "Microsoft must make more of its software code available to competitors to help them create competing products to run on servers. [...]The software maker would comply with Wednesday's ruling in the meantime and would immediately launch a website at which competitors could start the process of applying to license Microsoft's communications protocols for server compatibility."
I'd say that's bigger than WMP being unbundled. Especially since "Microsoft may still offer PC manufacturers a version of Windows with the media player but that it must not offer any commercial, technological or contractual terms that render the stripped-down version less attractive."
Source here
Just
Its a bad sign wher you reute someone's logic with the level of their popularity.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
When Microsoft does comment, I bet Steve Ballmer will say, "Microsoft has learned and grown through the experience. We are committed to moving forward as a responsible leader in an industry that is constantly, constantly changing."
And I bet Bill Gates will say, "This settlement puts new responsibilities on Microsoft, and we accept them," and also that he is "personally committed to full compliance."
Well, that's what happened at the end of the Anti-Trust case.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
And there in one post you can find all my freaks.
MS will be releasing two versions of Windows from now on, both priced the same, but one will have media player and one won't. Shocking to anyone?
I like muppets.
Making Microsoft unbundle components of the OS is a weak solution. Microsoft will do that but so something like like ask the user every week if they want to install it.
The real solution would be to force all PC vendors to include a option to buy the hardware without a OS and when doing so it must be listed with full credit of the OEM cost of Windows. So when a vendor says it includes $200 of software, I should be able to get $200 off if I buy it without an OS. Vendors could also offer Linux and BSD options. Make Microsoft contracts with the hardware vendors void as they are anti-competative.Because one of the big problems is that vendors like Dell, Sony and others do not give us a choice. For those running Linux or a BSD, you still have to buy a product that pays Microsoft extortion.
And if the US courts had any guts they would pass such a judgement instead of folding up like a house of cards
You see, it hasn't hurt me.
I chose to run windows. I also chose to run OS/2 and i also chose to run Linux and Solaris.
I chose to use Internet explorer and i chose to use Netscape and now i choose to use Firefox.
I also chose to use windows media player over everything else and i agree that the media player should be fully integrated with the OS because that is a feature we as in windows users request just as sound in kde/linux is done.
I don't think there is any injustice in the practices the EU are suing for. I don't want the EU suing so anoter crappy business (Real Audio) can get in with spyware and take over my pc - if anything Microsof thas been the most cooth over keeping things clean and protecting your consumer rights.
Server code doesn't need to be shared either. Thats like telling Oracle they need to share there IP because other databases that are emulating them are having to hack support or use proprietary systems.
Please tell me how microsoft has and continues to stimmy competition, the market and harm consumers?
Tell me again how the government suing microsoft in this case and the others will benefit the tax payers paying for these suits?
That WMP is an application framework completely with an SDK and extentions while Notepad is not. You can build products for WMP that are tightly integrated while Notepad you will have to rely on loosely tied interfaces to drive it.
At its core, Notepad is a tool meant to stand alone while WMP is an application that was meant to be extended. Is it Microsoft that is trying to muddy the waters? If Microsoft is allowed to claim anything they make is a tool for Windows and necessary for the OS then, ironically, it makes being an ISV less attractive for selling product on an open market (but more attractive if you want to be bought out by MS).
This is why WMP is dicey for Windows. If MS has a monopoly then they can leverage that into killing all other media players. If WMP is necessary for Windows to function and therefore a tool then why not the entire Office suite?
Because most Open Source software is a pain in the ass to use thats why.
That's some hella logic.
and that's peanuts against the US defict...
I know people who don't know squat about PC's but they still install Quicktime and Realplayer and WinDVD and powerDVD and whatever else they get.
If anything Apple should be shot for there proprietary iTunes system, quicktime plugin and such. Atleast with WMP you can configure it to work with seevral different stores, all different formats (with the purchase of 3rd party codecs such as divx, dvd and even open source codecs)..
Hell, when you buy a PC the vendor can install whatever he/she wants. You have a choice - microsoft isn't stopping you from making your own decisions.
HOWEVER they shouldn't be punished for providing a feature that you CHOSE to pay for in there core OS.
After all its YOU choosing not to use something that could potentially be better or offer more features.
They *have* a monopoly - no "almost" about it. It's not something you can ignore by saying "sure, but..." - and using such a monopoly to gain another monopoly is illegal, period. Negative thinking is the only possible view of those practices.
Mods!!! How can this be flamebait? It's a valid point that France and Germany failed to meet the deficit rules that they signed up for (and in fact argued strongly for) at the creation of the eurozone, with potentially serious effects on the economy of the whole eurozone. My implication was that perhaps it is easier for the EC to take on an american company than it is to get its own house in order. Just because I prefer to phrase that in a very concise manner...
Oh no... it's the future.
... what's the point in implementing them at all?
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
Does this mean that Linux vendors will no longer be able to ship a pre-installed media player? What about Apple Quick Time? Will it have to be removed from OS X?
Or does the "level playing field" only apply to Microsoft?
" Because most Open Source software is a pain in the ass to use thats why."
Well then you should be thankful we do not force down it your fucking throat - with OSS you do retain that right of choice.
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
"You see, it hasn't hurt me."
How many software solutions and technologies were destroyed or bought out and mutated beyond usefulness by MS? How many "killer apps" and technologies withered on the vine after MS moved to crush them?
You can't claim that it hasn't hurt you, because you have no idea what you are missing today because of their actions.
Why do courts always ignore the bootloader issue?
The bootloader license between Microsoft and OEMS states that the Microsoft bootloader must be installed as the primary bootloader and also that the MS bootloader must only be used to boot MS OS's.
Microsoft can revoke the vendor's license to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to offer.
When companies are denied the possibility of shipping computers with Windows AND any other OS without losing favor with Microsoft there is no way for any other OS to get a foot in the door.
Great OLD article about the bootloader issue and the demise of BeOS: http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Media Player isn't free, you pay for it and here in Europe this is called "forced sale" and is forbiden by law.
Killer apps exist.
iTunes, Rhapsody/Listen.com, Winamp, DiVX, PowerDVD, and even open source stuff such as dScaler have been superb at easily integrating and utilizing the OS.
Infact for ANY operating system out there i'd say as far as the OS goes and creating the tools necessary to harness the power Windows still wins hands down - its just that easy, and the market that huge that people can take the risks and make the investments to build that killer app.
Games are a fine example - They supprot DirectX and i don't hear them suing because they don't have control over the API or the ability to plugin there own SDK by default - they know they can use DirectX or license OpenGL or build a glide layer or do something else.
Windows is an OS, with tools provided to get the job done. Write doesn't get peoples jobs done so they buy Word, Office or Wordperfect. Windows Media Player doesn't work for everyone so they get iTunes, they get rhapsody and they get Winamp and everything else.
Windows XP has zip support built in and people still buy winzip..
I can claim it didn't hurt me because it didn't. The capitalistic society is responsible for what makes or breaks a venture - not whether or not WMP is included or the source code to IIS is distributed. Use linux or get apache or write your own OS if you want control
someone needs to set the grandparent straight
It is ironic that the US, the supposed champion of the free-enterprise markets, was unable to do what the EU is doing...enforce a free and competitive marketplace.
I couldn't agree more. However, if you need a break from your ranting, you could consider one positive (probably unintended) side-effect of the 'Evil Empire': Their development of a hugely successful, industry standard OS, based entirely on cheap commodity hardware, has given us powerful personal computers for as little as $350 dollars.
Can you imagine how different the world would be if they had gone the route of Apple and many other manufacturers, of locking their software to expensive, proprietry hardware? Maybe now, our only choice would be 'Microsoft PCs', at $5000 a pop with $1 charges every time you booted the thing. Microsoft have certainly expressed a desire to turn their software into 'services' instead. If it wasn't for business users, I have little doubt that MS Office would be a subscription based 'service' by now, costing $15-20 dollars per month to use.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
You forgot IANAL.
Once Windows is no longer shipped with Windows Media Player will will all have finally accomplished... NOTHING.
In solidarity with our Airbus-flyin' brethren I'm gonna run right out and install Real Player (now with Spyware!) on every winbox that can stand the performance hit.
The difference is that, as far as I'm aware, the US hasn't signed a treaty with most of the Central American countries regulating its permitted deficit.
How hard is it to write a media player that outshines WMP? It's not that difficult at all. In fact it's been done already several times. The problem with all of them is that while they gripe about Microsoft's "greed" they get greedy themselves and resort to tactics that the user finds distasteful.
They force the media player to run some component as a startup item. They develop their own proprietary format (that in most cases is inferior to Windows Media). They refuse to share the format with competitors. They bombard the user with splash screens, registration and upgrade prompts. They cram enough advertising into the players that it reaches the point of user punishment so that they can have further reason for an upgrade. They add components that intrude into areas outside of music playing such as video and web whether the user asks for it or not. They forcibly run some sort of agent that constantly checks for or prompts for upgrades.
Now with all this why would I want some third party media player? All I asked for is to listen to some music. I think in the year 2004 that my computer should be able to do it easily the moment I plug it in. My Apple can do it. My Linux box can do it. Shouldn't my XP box be able to do it? Why would you ask Microsoft to unbundled WMP from Windows? If you want me to use your media player instead just do one simple thing: write a better one and don't make me swallow a bunch of crap with it. No one seems to be able to do this so instead of trying they go cry to their lawyer and the next thing you know my PC can no longer play media when I take it out of the box.
People whine too much about Microsoft being unfair and having a monopoly. They also gripe about the inferiority of their products. Well guess what? You can't have it both ways. If they are so inferior why don't you just beat them? Probably because you suck. Look at Firefox. Do you see them whining? Do you see them suffering from Microsoft's monopoly? No. They just STFU and wrote a better product. Somehow they managed to do it without cramming a bunch of unwanted crap in with it; AMAZING!!
So stop litigating instead of innovating. Stop being greedy and you might get what you're after. MS isn't that hard to beat you just have to stop whining and suing long enough to do it.
If I dont like my power company all I have to do is move...Honestly does that make sense to you. I am going to move away from freinds, family, my job, the area I like to live in so I can get power from another company?
If I were to give someone credit for the PC-revolution, that would propably be IBM. The reason why we now have dirt-cheap computers is because prices of hardware came crashing down. And while that happened, price of the software (in this case, Microsoft-software) has remained steady.
If Microsoft had become another Apple in the early days, they wouldn't be the monopoly they are today. Apple at least had value-added features in their systems: the GUI. What would Microsoft have in those early days? MS would have competed against Commodore and Apple, both of which has OS'es that mopped the floor with DOS, not to mention their hardware when compared to x86 of the time.
And besides: I find very little comfort in the "Hey, it could be alot worse!"-statement, when situation today is what it is.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
For chrissake... you can't compare physical entities with software. And your argument is ridiculous. I run OS X, but have currently no use for iCal, iChat, iSync, iDVD, iMovie or Garage Band. I guess I should ask Apple for a refund, since they are charging me for all those extras that I really don't want. Not to mention Address Book, PHP, X11, cpp, diff, tar and various tools for people with disabilities. Hey, they even forced Chess on me, wasting valuable disk space.
If you could uninstall all of WMP, there wouldn't be a problem. It would be a simple matter for Microsoft to make WMP an optional component; it certainly was in the past.
You can remove up2date from Redhat distros. Same thing for apt-get and Portage. But you can't remove WMP any more than you can remove IE from Windows. You're stuck with it. And having it on a server makes about as much sense as having IE on a server.
Didn't you just answer your own question?
The fact that Apple are not in a monopoly means that they cannot be guilty of abusing that monopoly. The fact that M$ gives us WMP "free" with windows means that they have abused their market share to get a DRM capable player out there... now they compete against other DRM products, and they've already one. If everyone already has WMP what's the point in going with another DRM supplier, if we go with M$ everyone already has the tools to play our DRM content.
This is what the rulling was about. IMHO they should NOT have axed WMP from the OS, but axed DRM from the WMP. This would have been a better option.
That's right man!
He should be assimulated into the groupthink!
Shit! This place is a worse Borg collective than MS ever was.
To everyone saying this is ridiculous. Yes it is, but most gov't interference with business is. MS has taken advantage of all kinds of patent, dmca, and copyright law. They lobby governments all of the time, and in some cases us tax dollars pay to support MS sales over-seas. Now this it-political game they support has bitten them. And I'm expected to sympathize? -t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
I see you have a pretty extensive foes list there which I bet you love adding to.
/. would drop - if they ever grow up) you loser!
You sad fucking sack of shit!
Try making friends and foes in the real world instead of judging others by this childish arbitrary crap (which I wish
Quit whining. "It appears that the European Commission may not in fact be a complete waste of space after all" IS flamebait. You had a valid point but you chose to bury it into irrelevant drivel. Deal with the (petty) consequences.
And quit answering your own posts too.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
"The rules are different for a company that is convicted of abusing a monopoly position."
Say it a couple hundred times-- maybe then it will sink through that concrete surrounding that pea brain of yours.
"I find the entire issue of Microsoft packaging Media Player with Windows to be utterly ridiculous. It's their product. If they want to make it only work with other products of theirs, that's their right."
MS pressured OEMs to only ship computers with MS operating systems and used their monopoly position to drive others out of "their market". I cannot see how you were modded anything but troll.
It's a case against monopoly abuses.
You should read again about what a monopoly is, and what consequences it has. If there truly was a choice, it wouldn't be monopoly. 90% of the market definitely is a monopoly.
That's another point. EU's ruling does not intend to define precisely where such line is. They have a case, and they try it. It states multimedia apps are clearly on the wrong side of this line, wherever it precisely is. Would you say it's fully part of an OS?
Anyway, again, nobody would really care if there wasn't an unfair use of a previously unfair monopoly.
Typical free-trade extremism. Too much free-trade kills the free-trade. As of anything else.
Funny how in the states we have to deify what we don't understand. "In god we trust" state our notes. When it's not about JC's god, it's about a economical "magic hand" one. No such things in real life.
Think of it from an evolutionary perspective. If you let the big kill the small and get bigger, you get a dinosaurs world. Evolution theory doesn't work without ecological niches.
If it was the way you see it, you wouldn't be here to comment on it.
Think of it from a justice perspective if you prefer. What would be justice for if letting the strong anihilate the weak was working better?
"Take away our PlayStations
And we're a third-world nation"
A.D.
Considering that they could just give MS permission to bundle their software (kind of like how MS bundled AOL with Win9x). They essentially hurt themselves.
.mov format, along with a good deal of stuff on the web in solely .rm format, which MS cannot render within WMP, there's only one simple reason that Apple or RealNetworks could be hurt in any way:
Also, consider that most movie previews (that I've seen) are in
If I browsed to a video clip, do I want to see it NOW, or do I want to wait up to 5 minutes for it to dick around on my system and install, along with cleaning up after it if there's a crash or spyware?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
but why the hell are we focusing on things that are so ridiculous when there are a LOT of things that Microsoft does that are really worth antitrust litigation?
Good point. Why worry about the OS internals when the real issue is that you can't buy a Dell Inspiron without an OS because you want to run Linux on it. The real problem is vendors believe they get preferred treatment from Microsoft because they close out other OSes. So like it or not, Linux users who want Dell machines must unwillingly pay Microsoft Tax.
Microsoft Tax hinders anyone else in competing. Try to explain to your boss that you want to buy Red Hat after the PC you just got came with Windows.
What should be done is force hardware manufacturers to un-bundle the OS from the hardware. Allow the consumer the choice. Offer the OS as a add on, just like MS Office, Norton and others. The consumer would likely choose a different market mix if given a choice as most people to do not build their own systems to avoid Microsoft Tax.
But the reality is there is nothing happening in north america to change this.
This is somewhat O/T, so I'll post this without the bonus, but I feel obliged to offer a view here.
There are many things you can justifiably attack MS for. The quality of their development tools is not one of them. Visual Studio is streets ahead of the competition in almost every meaningful area, and the 2005 beta I'm currently testing with is better still.
I work at a company that develops on more than a dozen compiler/OS combinations, including several versions of Windows, Linux, several UNIXes, and several versions of MacOS. Portability is one of the most important things to us. Developers are free to use (within reason) whatever hardware, OS and dev tools they want.
We've looked into plenty of alternative IDEs and such. Some of our guys are "guru status" on Linux/MacOS/whatever. We have experience with more C++ compilers than most people have ever heard of. And yet 95% of us use some version of Visual Studio on Win2K/XP as our primary development platform. The reason for that is simple: if you're writing cross-platform code, you don't use a lot of the features, but the remainder is still among the best tools for the job.
Of course it would be nice if some of the best bits weren't Windows-only or restricted to certain languages and/or .Net-based projects. Historically, these have often appeared on Microsoft's current "platform of the month" first, and then been supported more generally later. (A lot of things that were C#/VB.Net only in 2003 have C++ support planned for 2005, for example.) But even without these details, there are few alternatives even in the same league as Visual Studio, and I'm not aware that any bests it for my personal needs.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If apple was ever to break out of the niche market, would their inclusion of iTunes and Quicktime be considered abuse of Monopoly? Everyone seems to be fine with it now.
OK, I know this is really hard for some people to understand, but having a monopoly causes capitalism to fail. Capitalism works because of competition. Without competition capitalism just funnels money from one group to another without any work being done.
No one complains about Apple bundling itunes or quicktime because they are not a monopoly. If Apple was a monopoly (not just 50% of the market but enough to make going with someone else pretty much impossible) we would be complaining about their DRM and their bundling.
We complained that Internet Explorer was shipped with windows, and now it's been completely integrated into windows, justifying arguements against removing it.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Slashdot complained loudly about the inclusion of a program with a dominant OS, that put everyone else out of business and destroyed an open standard. Now as a defensive measure that program is not only bundled, but welded on to the OS, resulting in the same as above and huge security problems for MS.
Will the same sort of thing happen with Media Player?
Will MS keep giving tons of money to politicians? Yes, it will be built in and the U.S. government will either do nothing or take so long to do anything that it is too late. Hopefully other countries will not be so easily bribed and will decide instead to capitalize on the popularity of anti-americanism to get re-elected.
Isn't it interesting that while people complain about the lack of security and host of exploits in Microsoft products that allow all kinds of malicious code to be executed on an unsuspecting user's PC, Microsoft is being sued because their OS makes it hard for Apple and Real to write code for it.
It is good to finally see a court where political contributions don't control the outcome, but this is still too little, too late. Microsoft should have been stopped from their anti-competitive bundling practices with hardware vendors that led to the monopoly of inferior software in the first place.
Why did the US shit it's pants and run to WTO whe europe impossed tarrifs on US steel. When has America used it's market as a club? The best thing for the opwrld wouild be for the US the revert to isolationism.
brainwashed
american
dumbass
tm.
I wouldn't run WMP 9 or later on a bet. You're worried about spyware? Consider this:
WMP 9 contains components that run in the kernel so you can't bypass the DRM.
WMP 9 uses the Microsoft HTML control to display web content.
Do you really want to run the world's top spyware security hole with kernel access? Do you feel lucky?
Bribing politicians can't get them out of this one.
This isn't a complete loss for Microsoft. It says MS has to license technology. It doesn't say on what terms, and it doesn't say open source software that's reimplemented Microsoft's protocols and interfaces are exempted.
how bundling WMP with Windoze gives (or can give) MS a monopoly on the media player market.
Even if you cannot uninstall WMP, it does not stop you from installing whatever other equally crappy media player you wish to use. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, this doesn't hurt Quicktime, et alia, because WMP doesn't play some of the most popular formats on the web -- which means other players are installed by the millions, just so people can watch movie trailers or listen to audio clips.
Despite conventional wisdom, I've discovered you can blame a guy for trying. It's called "attempted murder".
"The commission's case is mainly focused on Microsoft's integration of Windows Media Player into the operationg system and the effects that has on the ability of Real Networks and Apple to get their rival players used."
I buy an Apple System, it comes with OS-X, Quicktime, iChat, iMail, and Safari. In order for most software made to run on a mac (games, office software, design software etc...) you need to have the latest version of OS-X AND Quicktime installed. I can install Media Player for OS-X, I can install various Divx Codecs, and Mozilla/IE.
I buy a Dell, it comes with XPSP2, Direct X, Windows Media player, MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, and IE. In order for games to run I need the latest version of Direct X. In order for my software to run I need the latest version of XP. I can install Quicktime, Real Player, and various Divx Codecs. I can also install Mozilla.
I build a system. It comes with nothing. I install Redhat, Suse, or Mandrake Linux (your noobie friendly flavors) with the default settings it installs the OS, some Open Office app, some media player and some chat program.
Now what is the problem with what MS is doing?
The argument I here is that because Media Player is incorporated it makes it hard for Real Player and other players to work. However on my PC at home Quicktime and Real Player work just fine. If I don't feel like using Media Player I simply change the file associations. This can be done from the noob level of simply clicking the "box" that says "have quicktime play all these file types" and automagically every media file will try to open in quicktime thereafter.
If what MS is doing is so bad, why doesn't anyone go after Apple? I love my G5, but Apple has a lot stronger arm and closed mind when it comes to what is incorporated with OSX and what can be made to run on it than anyone else.
Ave Molech Setting
Can you imagine how different the world would be
Can you imagine how different the world would be if MS had not destroyed the software industry with their illegal practices? Imagine if all the companies they purchased and killed had actually sold their products. Imagine if the web and all networking functioned according to open standards and was not held back by having to work with IE's 5 year old broken versions of everything? Imagine if malware writers and worm writers had to try to make their system work on 5 different platforms. Imagine if all software did run on all computers. Imagine if the best product was the one used. Imagine if the voice recognition software that worked but was buggy 9 years ago was actually developed instead of killed. Imagine if my favorite game company was not assimilated and turned into a dumbed down crap factory. Imagine if you could make a word processing document 400 pages long, with some graphics, and send it to someone else, and they could read it, an easily edit it. What a crazy and unreasonable expectation.
The software industry is at least 5 years behind where it would have been if MS had not engaged in illegal business practices, and probably more like 10 years.
Bribing politicians can't get them out of this one.
You will be surprised, but not in a good way.
What if I want the choice not to have it there?
.NET Passport.
I don't see that option anywhere in Windows Setup. I also don't see the option to not have Internet Explorer, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express, or
Clearly, when talking about choices, the choice is to take what Microsoft mandates that I have, or put something additional on there, but not to remove something I don't want.
That's the problem here. I don't care if they bundle it, but please let me remove it.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
"The rules are different for a company that is convicted of abusing a monopoly position."
But here's another point. Don't like Mail.app? Don't like Safari? Don't like iChat? Drag them to the Trash and poof! They're 100% gone! Good luck doing that with OE and IE and MSN Messenger. You might get rid of the icon, but at least some of the guts of the app are still lurking in Windows and/or required for other things to work (someone please tell me why the FUCK I need Outlook Express installed if I want to use the full version of Outlook!).
BTW-- back in the OS 9 days, you could remove Quicktime from your system with no ill effects if you really didn't want it running. I'm not sure if that is still possible with OS X, but maybe one day when I'm bored I'll go poking around the system files of a spare Mac I can mess up without worry, and see what happens.
In capitalistic societies monopolies are treated differently since the market has no longer power or its power is sorely diminished to deal with a rampant monopolist.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In early 19th century nobody cared (at least in Souther US states) that black people were slaves.
Or that children and women were working in mines for 14 or 16 hours in a row.
People wanted their cotton or their coal, they did not care how this was obtained.
Nobody caring does not give carte blanche to anybody to breake the law at their pleasure.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The matter of fact is that MS has been declared a monopoly both in the US and the EU and that MS has been punished for that (in the US case, wristslapped gently).
Get over it, that is where MS stands, all the but MS this or MS that porr MS amount to MS fan boy masturbation.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... and deposit a hand written note that says "MS is a fucking monopoly" to aid your understanding of this matter?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Why is it that nobody ever thinks it is possible to have a biased, negative opinion of something for a reason? Why is it that people assume that the bias came first, and apparently from nowhere?
Yes, I have a negative view of Microsoft. How did I get it? By using their software, and paying attention to their business practices! It's not like I woke up one day from a troubled sleep and cried "Microsoft is teh suck! From now on I will believe this truth without paying attention to what they do!" Um, no. I payed attention to what they do, and thus I think they are 'teh suck'. I couldn't stand Microsoft well before Linux was even on my radar.
Oh, and if you think it all goes back to MS stealing Mac's code and nothing else, you haven't been paying attention yourself. It's funny how often people who don't understand someone else's bias also don't understand the history that produced that bias. "Gee, why is everyone so down on facism, you're just biased. Huh? What's World War II?"
The enemies of Democracy are
Yeah, their mice, keyboards, joysticks and gamepads are all rather nice (though I prefer Logitech for mice). I've always found it ironic and hilarious that MS insists they aren't a hardware company when that's the only thing they make that's worth using. :)
The enemies of Democracy are
Free the formats, protocols, and interfaces.
Of course, Microsoft could choose to compete on merit if those items were forced to be public standards, buttheir corporate culture isn't really geared for that sort of activity...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
(1) OS/2 was not in a monopoly position. Because of this, IBM was not as constrained as Microsoft is in terms of the activities they could engage in.
(2) The OS/2 media players and WPS objects could all be removed after installation. Also, one could choose not to install them in the first place.
(3) The OS/2 Web browser (WebExplorer) was a simple web-browsing application which could easily be deinstalled. It wasn't "integrated into the OS" to the point where removing it broke third-party products like IE is.
Let's face it -- Microsoft isn't just bundling the applications -- they've been tying other products to those applications and encouraging other ISVs to do so.
That has introduced a series of very real dependencies on the applications that they've bundled, and makes it almost impossible to replace those applications completely.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Wrong. It's done. Microsoft have already announced WMP less Windows will be released to OEMs in January and to others in February. Just because the US allows large corporations to appeal indefinately doesn't mean the EU does.
There will be a single appeal, but Microsoft MUST obey the ruling in the meantime. No matter how many EUROs they might want to try and bribe politicians with.
Why is it that nobody ever thinks it is possible to have a biased, negative opinion of something for a reason? Why is it that people assume that the bias came first, and apparently from nowhere?
Because people who are obviously biased tend to have a warped picture of the thing they're biased against. As such, they do not look at facts objectively. At all.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
If I buy a computer, lets say an acer laptop, I receive a copy of Windows. If I ask the laptop without windows, because I want to use Linux, It is not possible. However, the Swiss Law authorises me to send the unsealed microsoft cd's for refund.
There is no difference if the good is virtual or real!
PHP, X11, cpp, diff, tar are free tools, so I don't see what are you talking about.
With 3%-5% of market share for OSX, we cannot talk of monopoly. Regarding Microsoft, we can say that they are abusing of their dominant position. If OSX market share was higher, Apple would be sued for iTunes..
pv
Look, this is not significant because anyone would choose Real's crappy player of the WMP player. Its about DRM: once you get locked into MS DRM, then the studios have to play ball and go along with MS.
*Hell, when you buy a PC the vendor can install whatever he/she wants. You have a choice - microsoft isn't stopping you from making your own decisions.*
One of the big PC players wanted to install NetScape as the default browser on the machines they shipped. Microsoft applied pressure ( pulling the preferencial pricing ) and got them to reverse themselves. That player listened to market feedback, and tryed to play to it. Microsoft stopped them from making a decision.
So, are you *sure* that the vendor can make a viable choice here?
Also, did you know that for each machine sold, regardless of actual installed OS, you would pay for a licence for an MS operating system. That or dont get the good pricing.
Now, tell me again about how my choices are respected by Microsoft?
emt 377 emt 4
I couldn't agree more. However, if you need a break from your ranting, you could consider one positive (probably unintended) side-effect of the 'Evil Empire': Their development of a hugely successful, industry standard OS, based entirely on cheap commodity hardware, has given us powerful personal computers for as little as $350 dollars.
That has nothing to do with Microsoft. That has to do with the IBM PC and the successful reverse engineering of the BIOS which allowed the clone market to explode. Microsoft did nothing but ride the wave. If it had been DRDOS or QDOS or CMS or whatever that IBM picked instead, you might be claiming that they were the ones responsible for giving us the $350 PC, but you'd still be wrong. It was the commoditization of hardware that resulted in the PC revolution. If you want to know who to thank for your cheap PC, thank IBM, Phoenix, and the copyright laws of the day.
Can you imagine how different the world would be if they had gone the route of Apple and many other manufacturers, of locking their software to expensive, proprietry hardware? Maybe now, our only choice would be 'Microsoft PCs', at $5000 a pop with $1 charges every time you booted the thing.
They'd have loved to do that, but didn't really have the option, now did they? Their OS was used on the IBM PC and clones, and that is the reason why everyone uses MS. If MS had wanted to be the hardware company as well they could have tried, but they'd be niche players just like Apple, only less successful because their product -- particularly prior to Win95 -- wasn't nearly as good. Nobody thought MS-DOS or even Windows3.1 was great, it was just the thing that came on an IBM PC.
The fastest way for MS to lose their monopoly would be for them to ditch the commodity hardware that makes them cheaper and try to lock people into $5k machines. As it is, they're perfectly happy being the most expensive component of your average PC, and using their muscle to control where the commodity hardware market goes.
If it wasn't for business users, I have little doubt that MS Office would be a subscription based 'service' by now, costing $15-20 dollars per month to use.
Oh, I agree with that completely. That's pretty much what they tried to do with Licensing 6.0, but businesses gave MS the finger quite readily on that one. I'm surprised they haven't tried it in the consumer market, and the fact that they haven't indicates to me that for a reason that I can't think of right now it wouldn't work at all.
The enemies of Democracy are
"I chose to run windows. I also chose to run OS/2 and i also chose to run Linux and Solaris."
The average American (or European) consumer is completely unaware of what OS/2, Linux or Solaris are. The very fact that you've even heard of these and have even gone as far as to try them out excludes you from the average consumer pool. The average consumer is only aware of MS, and if MS is allowed to proceeed in it's tactics, will only be aware of Windows Media Player for playing mp3's/video files, and only IE for browsing. How many people at your workplace/University equate the internet with iexplore.exe?
"I chose to use Internet explorer and i chose to use Netscape and now i choose to use Firefox."
See argument above. There's a huge barrier to entry for Netscape/Firefox given that iexplore comes bundled with the OS and sits on the damn Start Menu. Most consumers, perhaps up until now, have equated the WWW = iexplore.
"I also chose to use windows media player over everything else and i agree that the media player should be fully integrated with the OS because that is a feature we as in windows users request just as sound in kde/linux is done."
That's a false analogy. There are hundreds of Linux distributions and they all CHOOSE what media player to install with their distribution. Also, the Linux kernel itself doesn't even include a media player. It's possible to get a Linux distribution with 4-5 media players installed or none; is that possible with Windows?
"I don't want the EU suing so anoter crappy business (Real Audio) can get in with spyware and take over my pc..."
That's fine. Don't install it then; that's your choice. Give the rest of the consumers the choice not to have WMP installed also.
"Please tell me how microsoft has and continues to stimmy competition, the market and harm consumers?"
MS HAS harmed consumers by effectively killing Netscape and stopping browser innovation since basically Firefox came out. It has bullied small businesses using the BSA; get busted if you don't run an entirely MS shop, or have even one unlicensed computer? Thousands of computers riddled with spyware and worms because consumers are unaware of a viable choice?
"Tell me again how the government suing microsoft in this case and the others will benefit the tax payers paying for these suits?"
I'm pretty sure the final verdict that's in the hundreds of millions of Euros will cover the cost of this verdict. The increased competition and innovation as a result of MS no longer being allowed to abuse it's power in at least one continent I'm sure has economic benefit also.
"...resulting in a huge security problems for MS"
For who?
Last I heard, it was Microsoft's customers who were having the security problems...
Many posters keep referring to MS as a monopoly. Well, I hate to defend MS, but usually a monopoly means that one entity controls either the source of production or the source of distribution. Please don't tell Linus that MS controls the source of production for software, or tell Mozilla that MS controls the source of distribution.
I'm okay with this ruling because MS does so many underhanded things that seeing them get slapped down is gratifying, but in the end better software is how we beat them. And 'better' does not mean Apple or Real - it means FOSS. The only 'monopoly' MS really has in in mindshare - and this is disappearing (see what's happening with Firefox). The way to beat them is to make a better player for the Win platform. (Or, better yet, convince everyone to move to a better platform!)
Excellent player without bunch of unwanted crap. Surely there are others, but this one replaces WMP very nicely for me. Open Source, too.
It's the day before the 4 day Christmas break. Of the 3 brokers actually at work today, I'm going to guess they're calling their travel agents and confirming reservations or something ...
True enough, but MS is one of their own customers. :)
Back before Microsoft was going through all of this antitrust business, another program being included in the operating system would just be considered an added bonus.
That wasn't just bundling. It was also "integrating" that made the software "impossible" to remove. If you don't want Notepad and Minesweeper, delete them. Fine, your choice. But what if you don't want MSIE and its security holes? The integration is intended as a way to compete with Netscape and look what it gets us now. This is not a bonus anymore.
If apple was ever to break out of the niche market, would their inclusion of iTunes and Quicktime be considered abuse of Monopoly? Everyone seems to be fine with it now.
Breaking a niche and bundling are not enough. Apple would have to attain a monopolistic status. Do you know how likely that is? Apple would have to make sure that nobody can get rid of QuickTime and threaten others from including their media player. But yes, should Apple get to that point and does threaten companies, Apple should be taken to court.
Microsoft gets punished for distributing an actually good software with Windows.
:-/
I use media player to view AVI files. I don't like having to instal quicktime or Real, to view a video file which was written in a proprietary format. Quicktime messes up my windows settings, and Realplayer, well...
So in this case, what should i do? Yay, or boo? (Not that I'm in favor of Microsoft). Anyway, I do support the judges' decision.
Ah there it is..
How will they make any money?
First of all, who says anyone *should* make money off a media player? Does it take a lifetime of work to create one? Is it *really* that big of a deal? It's like making money from creating a simple text editor. I don't think Microsoft should really be making any money from one either (but they do - more about that stupidity in a sec.) The only people that should be making money are the artists that create the content.
Second, I don't use WMP. Sure I've got it installed (like every other XP user) and it pops up when Windows Media is played on my PC simply because it's a proprietary format. Whose fault is that? It's the dumb suckers who've been giving MS money to use the format. They could have used any number of open formats but they chose not to, their money, not mine.
Back to my original point though: I use Winamp. How can I use Winamp when WMP comes bundled on my PC and already does everything Winamp does???? That's incredible! Not really. See it doesn't matter that MS has a monopoly in operating systems, Winamp has a cool media player and I downloaded it. I didn't need the Supreme Court or RealAudio's lawyers to help me either. All it took was an innovative piece of software with relatively little added crap and I'm there. Now mysillyvideo.com (or some other such place) can pay MS to use windows media if they want but there is no law that says they have to give MS their money. WMP plays mpg just fine and so does Winamp.
If you want people to be able to make money with media players, be very careful what you ask for. Remember, the money they make is yours.
Requiring MS to ship a version of XP without Media player is not really of any help to anyone. If you want another media player, it's trivial to get one. For example, I use Winamp to play my quite considerable library of Grateful Dead live concerts - something the other players don't do for me. It takes but a few minutes to download the latest copy of Winamp and the needed plugins each time I reinstall my workstations. It's not really hard.
As a consumer, how does a MP-less OS really help me? First, if I'm buying a new machine, I might now have two OS choices to make (I'm not clear on how the OEMs will react to two versions of the OS, so this might not be an issue for all OEMs). Presumably both versions are charged at the same price - so what would most (non-clueful) consumers do? Tick the box with the most free toys of course!
Secondly, If I don't chose the right box, I now have to do something to get a media player - which means confusion for the more novice user. These days most consumers would expect media playing from XP - after all, the whole ad campaign around XP (in the consumer space at least) emphasised the ability to do digital media.
And finally, assuming the user has some decent Internet connection - pretty much as they hit Windows Update, they'll be given a chance to download the next version of MP anyway!
And of course, requiring two versions of XP is also of no help to corporates. Corporates who care about media players have long ago dealt with this. Those that don't care, well they don't care.
It seems to me that there were remedies that might have promoted choice but this does not seem one of them.
The fine is big - nearly 500m. But I'm unclear as to how that fine will help consumers? Who gets the money? If the fine was to be paid back to every consumer who bought XP, or the money used to fund the free disrtibution of Winamp, it might make some sense.
Finally, on the point of requiring MS to release stuff. That too is not as cool as it sounds at first sight! Microsoft has been gradually opening the kimono for years now. Most folks have probably missed it, but the openness (compared with 5 years ago) is awesome.
You want code access? Just about anyone who relly needs it can get it. MVPs have code access, for example as to universities, and pretty much any firm over 1500 people. No - the judgement does not call for source code - but as most slashdot readers will know, source code access can help.
What the judgement asks for is access to the protocol definitons. Well, there's the huge library of the protocols that MS now license - some for free, although most for a fee. As I understand the legal talk - the judgement does not call for these specs to be free free but rather "on reasonable and non-descriminatory terms". These seem to me to be some of the key protocols needed to satisfy the judgement. The judgement does call for the server-server protocols, such as the details of AD replication. See http://members.microsoft.com/consent/info/Default. aspx for some details of what's currently on offer and http://members.microsoft.com/consent/info/Default. aspx for cost details. But don't try going there with Firefox - the navigation appears not to work. According to the EU, a grand total of 17 licenses have ben delivered - so there's not really an overwhelming demand for this stuff!
But who really benefits from this ? I suppose some of MS's biggest competetors might benefit and of the lawyers will have a good Christmas bonus. But at the end of the day, I can't see how this helps the consumer, the industry at large or Microsoft.
As I noted above, the Microsoft and the market of today is much different to the one of 5-10 years ago. The company today is far more open. And I'm not sure how the consumer has truly been harmed, and having read the judgment, I'm even less clear.
We sure do live in interesting times"
Thomas
MSIE was a big piece of crap too back then, more so than now. It and Netscape were what turned me on to Opera. The resume-where-you-left-off" feature of Opera combined with MS Windows inability to go more than an hour or two between blue screens kept me from ever looking back. Though fortunately, I've never had been stuck with MS junk on any of my main work computers.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
For the record, I'm currently halfway through question 4 of CATAM 1.1 and was taking a break (the omegas are frying my brain somewhat). The stupidly late nights correspond almost in entirety to the nights when I have work to hand in the next day. There is no excuse for the sycophantic comments tho, or for causing problems for supervisors - I'll get back to work.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!