Slashdot Mirror
EU Sleuths Think Microsoft Sabotaged Windows
Adam Zweimiller writes "The Inquirer is reporting that in it's ongoing battle with Microsoft, the European Commission is investigating the possibility that the Vole has sneakily sabotaged the Media Player-free versions of Windows it is obliged to ship to the EU. A report (subscription required) in today's Wall Street Journal suggests Microsoft has fiddled with the registry in its stripped-down Windows offerings and the result is that video clips embedded into Microsoft Word documents don't run properly, for example."
"...and the result is that video clips embedded into Microsoft Word documents don't run properly..."
I'm just going to take a wild guess here and say that maybe they should install Media Player to get those clips to run properly?
And for those who actually take this seriously....
I'm sure someone will try to point out that Word won't play embedded media clips even if alternative media players are installed. Seems logical to me, when embedding a media file in a proprietary document format it likely requires Media Player to play it.
It's like "suggesting" Microsoft purposely "sabotaged" the Help system after a person removes the IE Core from the system. (Doing so effectively breaks the help system among other things)
...that which can be attributed to incompetence.
-R.J. Hanlon
Seems odd to me that they want media player removed, but still want to play media under certain conditions.
I don't know about you, but when you ask someone to take out its native media-playing capabilities from the OS, then don't expect products from the same company that rely on that product to work.
It's like someone removing Direct-X and then bitching about how their game doesnt work anymore.
Why on earth you would ever want to put a video clip into a word processor document? Isn't the point of a word processor document that you might want to print it out?
Please don't tell me it's because they plan on publishing their web site with Word. That's the only reason I could think of off hand.
Oh yeah... and I don't think it's outrageous that MS cripple any of their products. Free market economies rock... someone can give them a non-crippled product and make some change take place.
How many times has someone made a change to one part of an application only to find out that it breaks something else? It seems to me that this type of problem is the very reason MS didn't want to pull out MP in the first place.
-K
If, as the MS rep claims, that the registry problems are due to the removal of the normally integrated Windows Media Player, then should we be worried?
Yes. If WMP becomes another "essential component" of windows, like IE did back in the days of the DOJ trials, that is, remove it and you destroy windows, then we're in for another long round of format lock-in, the way MS wants. I think it's important to watch as MS adds "features" to the operating system to ensure that it's not just a sneaky way to further another of MS's goals (e.g. media format dominance).
It seemed like hogwash then, and it seems like hogwash now. Just because a modular component was integrated, doesnt mean it cant be undone. It may take a lot of effort, because you intentially put yourself in a dependancy ditch. But that's your fault for not thinking ahead of time and considering the possibility that one day, that dependency might not be available. And yes, it is reasonable to think that MS programmers think like that. Just because they got away with it once, doesnt mean it's going to happen again. They should be prepared for the eventuality that at some point, not every piece of MS software will be available on the install by default.
If you remove the top few percent from both the US and European numbers (ie: the richest people) then the numbers become more or less equal.
Never assume malace when simple incompetence will do.
Which is more likely? Do we really need a conspiracy to explain this?
It is interesting to note that if Windows didn't ship with these modules that got it in legal trouble in the first place, your PC would be a lot less functional out of the box.
Windows Media Player, for many people, is their preferred music-playing application. Why? It came with their PC, it was there, and it made their PC do stuff right out of the box. It probably came with a dozen or so free MP3s of public domain works (I know some classical music, Jazz, and old MIDIs that date back to Windows 3.0 days come with every install of Windows.)
Windows XP also burns CDs natively (they licensed Roxio's technology for this.) Sure, it's a piece of crap, but it *does something* right out of the box -- and many times that's been just what I needed to get out of a sticky tech-support situation.
The problem is...people would see their computer doing the stuff already, and not see a need for QuickTime, RealPlayer, Winamp, BSplayer, or one of a dozen other third-party media playing applications. Thus, the anticompetative behavior. Microsoft did add value to the PC by including out-of-the-box applications to do what most computer users want to do (play media of one sort or another) but in doing so, drastically eliminated the market for other application providers.
I'm not saying MS is in the right for their tactics, but, the monopolisation effect is a result of their behavior, not vice versa.
The terms the EU is imposing are clear: MS has to deliver a Windows without Media Player component that is not crippled in any respect when the OS is used with an alternative player. Perhaps that is not so easy-- but then again it isn't like MS with all its billions of cash reserves is going to be bankrupted by the development costs.
It's like "suggesting" Microsoft purposely "sabotaged" the Help system after a person removes the IE Core from the system. (Doing so effectively breaks the help system among other things)
That's what Microsoft did. Apps are apps and OS is OS, and coupling one to the other has been recognized as bad design since the 1960s or earlier. Yet MS purposefully chose to do bad engineering because it looked like a good marketing strategy.
I won't shed any tears if the EU declares that MS has been acting illegally, and that its protections under EU law are therefore voided. I wouldn't benefit from that directly, but I expect that I would see a lot of indirect future benefits if Windows code ended up in European public domain.
I really think that it is time for Redmond to grow up and take on the responsibilities that go with its success. And stop farting around like an adolescent entrepreneur with a shoestring budget.
No, it's more like suggesting that Microsoft LIED to the US monopoly court when they presented videotaped "evidence" that Windows with IE removed was unstable - therefore IE was an "essential" part of the OS. In fact, the prosecutor noticed, while the tape was being played in the court by MS, that the "before" and "after" computers weren't even the same unit. MS had just switched machines, with the "after" machine sabotaged. While the prosecutor demonstrated that a Windows machine which had IE removed, even deleted as functions from DLLs (by a Princeton professor with no access to the source, just crude binary tools), worked pretty well, certainly much better than the fake "evidence" perpetrated by MS. Apologize for Microsoft all you want: this is how they operate. With contempt for consumers, laws, courts, government, and even the apologists fool enough to trust them.
--
make install -not war
So you think it's OK that Microsoft agreed to remove WMP, because they never agreed to leave Windows in working condition? That kind of compliance is known as "contempt". Is your post some kind of MS astroturf? Why else would you apologize for these sleazy liars?
--
make install -not war
I'm sorry, but the parent post is just nutso. France alone is the 4th largest economy on the planet, comparing more closely to California than lowly Alabama. Have you ever seen what a newly constructed French house looks like? Compare the quality to new housing in the states.
Americans do spend a bit more as a percentage of their earnings, but that means Europeans are saving more, which is hardly a bad thing.
I just can't believe anybody would recite such claptrap. The poster must have never been to Europe to be able to type such rubbish.
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
Yeah but embedded ole objects rely pretty heavily on their host application. So this would be a pretty easy demonstration to fake.
Good example - if you embed a visio document into a word document (which you can do really easily) - don't expect the person you send it to have a fully embeded version of vision inside the word doc to add/change the visio drawing. You may even have problems printing a full resolution copy of the drawing inside word without having visio installed.
Same holds true for media - the most it will do is show you an icon. Do this as a test though - install real media onto one computer - embed a real media clip into that word document - ship the file off to someone running a mac, or windows without real media. Notice how you'll get an error when playing the file inside word.
I've found - at best ole objects are nifty tricks you can perform in the office, but by no means a replacement for file format placement, or content distribution (like media in word, or excel docs in word etc).
I've read that report, and it's misleading. The report has an agenda, and that agenda is making the economics in the EU more like those in the USA.
The report talks about net income (which is income after tax), and it completely neglects to take account of all the services provided by taxpayers.
What it effectively says is "The net income of people in the EU is lower that that in the US, and that this is due to (amongst other things) higher taxes."
What it ignores, is that people in the USA must pay for health insurance, public transport, education, and a host of other social security benefits that are available to most people in the EU.
I haven't travelled in the US, but I have in Europe, and I never noticed a single homeless person there (I'm not saying there aren't any). The situation there is even better than in Australia where I live.
If I had to make a choice between a high-tax/high-spend system, and its opposite, I'd go for high-tax every time, because of increased social productivity, vastly decreased crime, homelessness, drug addiction.....
When I read it, I couldn't believe that someone could write a report with such transperant bias.
It's more like
Manager: Take that media player out of your operating system.
Me: ok
Manager: Now, install RealPlayer. Why don't these media clips play anymore now that we have a competing media player installed?
What I'd happily say: Because Microsoft left the registry in a way that makes it difficult for competing media players to run those clips. Slap me silly with surprise. RealNetworks already demonstrated a functioning Media Player-less Windows, so this is more shenanigans from Microsoft.
Not to turn this into a discussion of the merits of socialism, but keep in mind the average European has safety nets Americans don't-- medical care being the most obvious (I'm sorry, but our system is a mess... Insured or not, a major illness is guaranteed to bring economic catastrophe to the average American.) They also (in most countries) have much more vacation and leisure time, as well as generous unemployment benefits (which, of course, goes hand-in-hand with the fact that it's much harder to actually find a job there...)
With the exception of medical care, I can't say which system is better-- wealth is nice, and it's much harder to achieve the higher echelons on your own in the European system (by starting your own business, for example.) On the other hand, are we really better off with larger homes and more appliances? Most Europeans I've met have all they need, if not everything they want. And my impression is that they tend to enjoy a more stress-free existance, because if they lose their job or get sick they don't face the risk of losing everything we have.
Having a look at some fiqures here, The average wage in the USA is around $36,764 ... so i dont know where your pulling these GDP fiqures from .
the Uk has an average salary of £22,411 which is around $41,958.91
The same for germany and france roughly
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
They asked to have Media Player and all its components removed from Windows, Microsoft complied. Now they're complaining that Media Player doesn't work? God this MS bashing has gone to ridiculous levels.
"video clips embedded into Microsoft Word documents don't run properly"
... whether Microsoft is complying properly with the requirement to offer a fully functioning version of Windows without Media Player."
"The commission is still in the process of assessing
Well. They complied. They provided a fully functioning version of Windows without Media Player. It's very unfortunate that the entirely separate application, MS Word, which is not a part of Windows doesn't do everything it used to, given that it relies on Media Player being part of the O.S. Then again, the ruling covers the O.S. not the separate application.
I mean, seriously... When I write an tag to use Media Player in a web page, it doesn't work as well now either. If an external app looks for a specific set of calls and can't find them, of course it's not going to work. That's hardly the fault of an OS that was ordered to stop supporting those calls.
Now, on the other hand, had Microsoft been ordered to fully and transparently transmit those calls to any application the user cose to install in Media Player's place - and if Real could prove they seamlessly supported that complete set of calls - then there'd be a legitimate case. But the article makes no mention of that.
What it does say is that Microsoft has to make a fully functioning version of Windows without Media Player. It has done so. It infers that Microsoft should also make Word support Media Player's absence better - but never actually shows where that was part of any ruling.
Weasley? Perhaps. Actually breaching the letter of the ruling? Not from anything that's actually in the article.
I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a medialess windows it won't play media without doing the work to get it to run. What someone needs to do (maybe real, though I wouldn't run there software for the life of me, I've had more crashes caused by real player than by anything else in windows XP other than beta ATI graphics drivers) is write there own dll's that duplicate the DirectShow functionality and offer that as a download.
As it is, DirectShow is a feature of Windows Media Player (at least as far as I've ever understood) and if you take out media player the fancy DirectShow offerings fail to work. Seems simple and not blatently sneaky.
I'd like to see you install linux without the GNU tools or X or any other application level stuff and see how useful it is. Probably not very (though I'll claim not to be an expert so I may be wrong).
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Too little and way too late. Everybody I know who's even remotely computer literate (and a fair few who aren't really) have had it with real. I wouldn't install it if I had a signed afidavit from the CEO saying it won't call home or resist uninstallation, distills whiskey and prints $100 notes.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
I think your example of X is flawed for exactly the reasons you think it isn't. X doesn't have to be XFree86. I don't know if they are still around but there used to be a few closed source commercial X servers available for linux, and XFree86 has recently forked so there are at least two free ones to choose from.
:), and so you are free to implement your own if you want.
:)
X is a well documented standard (and if the documentation is lacking, you can just read the source
If you wanted to roll your own Media Player, you'd have to do a fair amount of reverse engineering to do it - which is illegal in some places.
I'd write more but the kids need a bath
This is exactly where it seems to me like this whole thing gets "sticky".... Did Microsoft ever really promise people that Media Player was just a "front end shell" for all of these media capabilities in Windows, or were they implying/intending it to be their preferred *default method* of working with multimedia in Windows?
.exe file makes it stop working properly), it seems like it would strengthen Microsoft's argument that they intended theirs to be looked at similarly.
Personally, if I received a Media Player free version of Windows, I wouldn't expect files made for their format to play if I embedded them in, say, MS Word. I'd think the *expected* behavior would be for them to be "broken", at least until I installed 3rd. party products to handle the media.
Even the folks making the technical argument that the Media Player codecs should still be in Windows XP when MS removes the "player front-end" seem to me like they're treading on thin ice. This argument boils down to deciding if "Media Player" encompasses the codecs that "make it go" or not. Since competing players like Quicktime consider their media playing products as "one component" (deleting the
Regretably that's not actually safe at all.