Slashdot Mirror
MS, EU Agree on Name for Windows Sans Media Player
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has agreed with European Union antitrust regulators on a new name for Windows software sold in Europe. Officials at the U.S. software giant said they had accepted the European Union's offer to call the European version of Windows sold without Media Player "Windows XP Home Edition N" - with "N" standing for "not with media player." Microsoft's "XP Professional Edition" will also include the "N" for versions sold without the media player. The prior name for the OS was Windows XP Reduced Media Edition." News.com also mentions the choice.
What is even more amazing is that Microsoft's lobbyists seem to be having an impact on some of our so-called representatives in the European Parliament.
Take, for example, Spain's Manuel Medina MEP, who appears to have bought completely into their propaganda. In a recent article he writes:
He goes on to tell us that software authors (of whom he claims there are few in the EU, presumably because we haven't had the benefit of software patents) support patents, while only those self-interested "network users" oppose the directive.If you live in Spain and care about this issue I ask you to contact Mr Medina and politely provide him with some counter-arguments to this pro-software patent FUD. His contact info is:
Ah, I'll bite.
What you're missing is two parts of Microsoft strategy that can be realised through creating a monopoly using Windows Media.
Part 1:
Make Microsoft Digital Rights Management the de facto standard for digital rights.
Benefit: Server sales (issuing licenses), OS sales (consuming licenses), license fee on using the tools, government medical and military implementations (guise of securing information, reality = hard to remove later).
How: DRM isn't yet being used to protect documents or emails widely, but the demand is high from those representing content owners (RIAA + MPAA, etc) to protect those industries from the sea change the internet brings to their business models.
So by playing on the inherent fear in the media industry Microsoft can appear to be a big enough player to be able to help those entities protect their media and thus their business model. The media conglomerates sign up to this because the fear of piracy exceeds the fear of getting in bed with a monopoly.
As the Windows Media DRM was shipping by default on every Windows PC, Microsoft are given a monopoly on DRM and the assumption can be made by most companies, governments, etc... that when they start needing DRM for documents, emails, etc... that they can assume that Microsoft DRM is already installed on the system.
Thus Microsoft can win the DRM market before the market is truly born or has healthy competition. The advantages to them being long term financial security and growth.
Part 2:
Make Microsoft Windows Media the de facto standard for encoding and decoding multimedia.
Benefits: License fees mostly. Just imagine Microsoft earning a few cents of every DVD sold, every MP3 player sold, every DVD player sold. And imagine what this would do to Linux distros who won't pay to license the technology or wish to ship an encumbered piece of software.
How: It's already happening, convert cinemas to digital projectos and ship Windows Media files. DRM protected of course to ensure no piracy in the cinema supply chain. Encourage the studios to use that same platform for packaging media for re-sale later (via online rental and DVD's, and other media). Promote an encode once ship many times basis where the protection is just a given and subtitles, languages, etc are embedded from the outset.
That's the top down... but then we also have the bottom up: Put Windows Media on all Windows desktop, make it a safe assumption that WMP is installed, so that when companies make technology decisions there is a given advantage to WMP in that you don't have to worry about having to have something shipped.
So... Windows Media is a bitter pill to swallow indeed. It has two objectives, and two means of hurting other companies now and in the future, both of which serve to reinforce the existing monopoly.
Sure, the consumer doesn't give a shit that much, and frankly I don't care too deeply about what format something comes in.
However it is plain what they are trying to do and how they are doing it... and it is a VERY GOOD THING that the EU have forced them to remove WMP. As this erodes a lot of the basis for the above two points.
You don't want ANYONE making the assumption that WMP just exists, and you do want an open competition in DRM, media player and media format markets.
Hope that helps enlighten a little.
So instead of a descriptive name telling consumers they are buying a "Reduced Media Edition" of Windows, the EU would rather consumers saw the completely undescriptive and easy to miss "N". Whose side are they on again? It seems the only ones to benefit from this will be Microsoft, when people grab this off the shelf without knowing what it is then go out and buy another copy of uncrippled Windows when they realise their mistake.
Probably because the EU's reasoning wasn't explained.
Basically, if WMP is guaranteed built in, we have the same situation as recently with web standards -- if somethng doesn't work in your browser, but it does in IE, well, use IE or wo without. For media, it'll be everything is locked down with WMP DRM; and everyone who wants to provide media will have to pay MS for the right to make WMP-compatible files/streams.And it's not "NO MEDIA PLAYER", it's NO WINDOWS media player". Vendors are free to bundle any of a number of alternatives. Or you can download your choice in 5 minutes; even MS's WMP if you want.
Now I know I was secretly right, but obviously misinformed :)
I've googled it:
http://www.aufait.net/~garnet/muse/lla.html
The current settlement prohibits Microsoft's OEM license from disallowing dual boot machines. This was the tactic used against BeOS. It also allows OEMs to pre-install other applications without Microsoft's permission. This was a tactic used against Netscape.
Does this regulation apply in EU?
(I guess it does)
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
You're probably right, I found this statement in stories last December: "The EU ordered that Microsoft couldn't charge more for the version sans player, but it didn't say that Microsoft had to charge less." Seems a bit wimpy to me, should have mandated it be at least a few percent cheaper, otherwise the OEMS will just ignore it.