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.
Windows Reduced Monopoly System?
And with a name like that, nobody's gonna buy the non-media player version.
Now when can we get Windows XP Reduced Internet Explorer edition?
Windows XP Home Edition Neutered
Seriously, start reading your website. This was done just yesterday
And these People are happy with just a name change like that...
Geez...
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:
And who is going to stock this stripped down version?
MS can print 10 copies of it and send one to each shop, they hide it on the back of the shelvs and they are sticking to the law.
Plus "professional/home edition" or "N" hmm which sounds better..
I like muppets.
And being that consumers are being given a choice between the two, at the same price.. what do you think Joe "EU" Sixpac will pick?
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
But this time I really think they've gone too far with their attempts to cripple their own operating system. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face, and it's not like they are going to turn from Mayim Bialik into Jenna von Oy by doing so.
Rather, they submit a broken operating system as their means of working around the EU legal system. What really irks me is that this isn't the first time they've done this kind of thing either. When instructed to remove the IE application, they ripped out all the IE guts and crippled the OS. Now they are ripping out the MP guts and crippling it all over again.
I mean I like Joseph Lawrence as much as the next guy, but when it comes to ability, Michael Stoyanov is what really sold the show. This is how it is with Windows as well. The glitzy application isn't what keeps us coming back. It's the solid foundation underneath that's important.
And shame on the EU for accepting this as anything but contempt of court.
This whole "no media player thing" makes no sense to me - if the video player bothers you so much, don't use it. The (EU) government forcing microcrap to not include its video player in this N version will take up man-hours to rewrite code and produce new packaging that could be used for something more useful.
I understand that it will save a few megabytes (which costs a fraction of a cent in harddrive space) but it will likely lead to bugs because parts of the OS will have to be rewritten - and we all know how easily msft screws things up like that.
BTW, I don't know much about this case so if I am missing something, please enlighten me.
What's going to prevent Microsoft from issuing a "critical update" that re-installs Media Player onto the reduced version? I think this is the loophole that Microsoft is going to use to get Media Player back into play.
As a black man I find this use of the N word extremely offensive.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I'm glad that the EU is doing something about Microsoft's monopilistic practices but I believe noone will choose this version of Windows over a version with a media player. Since IMO an OS producer should be able to do what they want with their software (or at least, it's difficult to prevent them) I beieve the best way to open up the market is to allow PC builders the ability to offer more than one OS on their machines without MS penalising them (as they did to Hitachi over BeOS).
Is this new "N" edition going to be bundled with new PCs sold in the EU by default, or is this strictly a decision to be made by off-the-shelf purchasers? It seems those sufficiently informed to know the difference between the two editions already use whatever media player they find best, and those not sufficiently informed pretty much stick with the version of Windows that came with their PC.
It would appear to me this solution is cosmetic at best.
http://jeffkrimmel.com
There are allready some comments and there will be many more in the line of "and Joe Sixpack will not buy it".
This might of course be true, but that's not what this case is about. This is about PC vendors being able to sell a fullblown XP PC without windows media player, but with an other media installed that takes it place.
For example, some PC vendor could strike a deal with Apple to sell a PC and an ipod bundle and have itunes and quicktime included in XP and not the windows media player.
We've got its ...erm... "name" but what about its PRICE ?
How much cheaper will it be if I have to make an offer for a corporate client (who'll obviously be happy not to get the Media stuff) ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
How silly... forced to package a version without media player. At least they're allowed to sell it for the same price... you can buy XP for $100, or you can buy XP Reduced Media Edition for $100... which would you prefer. And suddenly a backbone appears and the name Reduced Media Edition is not allowed (humm... to descriptive? what about truth in packaging?).
Anyways... good enough for MS... toss a bone to the courts... after kicking them in the teeth! I wonder if the marketing guy who came up with Reduce Media Edition got a raise?
If the EU wanted to do some actual, tangible good, maybe they should have forced Dell or Gateway to offer alternative OS's on their PCs that are sold in EU markets.
You can get your Steaming Crap with Chunks of Corn(tm) or Steaming Crap with Bits o' Straw(tm) but you're still getting a bowlful of Steaming Crap(tm).
Too lazy to create a sig...
I pressume if the EU really is interested in choice for its citizens, then one will have a choice as to which version to buy?
I'm all for giving Microsoft a good kick in the teeth at any opportunity, but how exactly does this benefit the user? If, as I suspect, this is only the version which is _sold_ in the UK, then it will affect very few people. Most people buy a PC with Windows XP preinstalled, I doubt any of these will be version "N". Which retailers are going to want to sell a PC which won't play media out of the box? Sales people will easily talk a lot of people coming in just to buy a copy of XP to get a new machine instead with the "full" version of XP on, which can only increase the collusion between Microsoft and retailers. If the European Union is serious about its concern regarding monopolistic practices, they should immediately implement the same policy as the government of Peru.
Thanks, I thought it stood for Netscape or for Napoleon !
Trolling using another account since 2005.
He [MS Rep] added that the company had "some misgivings" about the new name, but decided in the end to cooperate.
Seems the EU Commision dictated what this product will be named. While I understand MS lost and must face sanctions, I fail to see why they would care what MS calls the product or how their laws could allow for such intrusion in basic marketing practices not at all related to the case at hand. Perhaps the EU can now get busy dictating the packaging it will be shipped in and start writing the ad campaigns.
That, is marketing genius.
For now, yes, until they can figure out how to sell Windows XP N64 without Nintendo finding out.
And these People are happy with just a name change like that...
No, as well as changing the name, they also removed Windows Media Player.
hth
Just like if you don't like Internet Explorer you can stop using it right? Well, almost. The more crap Microsoft integrates into the OS the harder it is to avoid using said components. I use Firefox as much as possible, but due to the way Microsoft leveraged their horrific IE into the OS I still unavoidably must use it on occassion. I absolutely love VLC, and try to use it pretty much all the time, but the more MS leverages their components into the market the more likely my ability to use VLC will be decreased. This isn't like Walmart, where the "just don't shop there" sentiment I see tossed about actually applies. They are designing in components so that I can't shop anywhere else.
Now how do we get a court to say they can't include the default Luna theme?
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
apple bundles itunes, safari, and what not with their os, but they don't get in trouble. is it just because they're not as big as microsoft?
And then they will call it
Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG
I'd buy the N version if it's cheaper, but the first thing I'd install is the latest Windows Media Player. At least it'll keep me from having to uninstall the packaged version before installing the latest build. Hell, I wouldn't put it past Windows Update to automatically install the thing for me!
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.
atleast someone there to stop M$ from doing whatever they want.
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
With my crystal ball I'm seeing the future. Hmm... The price of the N editions will be...drum roll...MORE than the non-N versions! It's natural that since they need to remove some stuff from the original, they need to be compensated for this extra work!
And few years down the line Microsoft will claim that since the non-N versions are not selling so good, nobody really wants choice in media players.
Can we get Slashdot Reduced Dupe Version?
Windows XP Home Edition (N)o Media Player and (O)ffice
Are there any PC vendors planning to ship Windows N (with their own media player instead)?
Wouldn't 64N be more likely?
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Remember the arguments that MS made during IE litigation? They said that removal of IE would cripple the OS . . . I wonder if they will eventually be putting hooks into the bundled WMP that aren't available in the separate d/l version? And then they will use the excuse that these features are "impossible" to include in the OS without bundling them in from the beginning (a completely bogus argument, but one that they made in the past with IE).
Of course I expect them to play ball with the EU commission for the time being, but I fully expect a future version that will leave EU customers behind because WMP isn't bundled. And EU customers will be pissed. Then MS will say to the EU Commission, "Don't you see how your customers demand that we bundle WMP with the OS? They are demanding the product that you have taken away from them!"
And if MS's plan goes to fruition, the EU commission will have egg on its face . . .
But it seems to me that a country ought to be able to determine what it imports, especially from possible hostile nations such as the U.S.
If Europe doesn't want the normal Windows operating system, then they are free to mandate that another version be provided. The alternative for Microsoft is to simply abandon the European market altogether, but Europe's a big country and not a market they are loath to give up so easily.
And I disagree with your assertion that this will cause problems down the road. As Microsoft separates the two operating systems into two branches, one Windows Normal edition and one Windows Media-Free edition, they can actually increase jobs in Europe as the local Windows MF version will need to be updated and can most easily be done so within the borders of Europe.
Of course, that is only one possible scenario. The other scenario is that Windows MF shrivels up and dies because no one is interested in the crippled OS. But that's not for Microsoft to decide. As the laws of national sovereignty lay out (though Americans are likely to disagree), each country should be able to decide how it will interact with its neighbors without pressure from external forces. Thus, if Europe wants to have a special version of Windows for themselves, then it is their right. For Microsoft, it's an all or nothing proposition.
I'm just sad that they had to do such a blatant act of nose spiting in the face of the European government. They could have handled this much better.
Software rivals are now complaining, however, that the new MP-less version is not fully compatible with their programs, further complicating the implementation of the EU's antitrust ruling.
Is anyone really surprised at this behavior . . .
...Anyway?
I'm willing to bet that 90 + % of all future users of this Windows XP N thing will just go and download the Windows Media Player installer from the MS site anyway.
What is the EU gaining?
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.
Let the WMP lie down in the dustiest corner of the file system. Let the OEM install Winamp, QuickTime and XMMS to boot.
Just make the phrase "you cannot install competing stuff" illegal to appear in a license. Because locking out others is anticompetitive and not bundling.
The message should be: "Do your business. Compete on merit. Let the user/OEM/whoever choose." not "remove the media player (r) (tm) and continue your dirty games".
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
Do we pay more or less for the extra letter?
Many people have thought it, but I want to ask the question: why didn't they go for the thing that was thought to be in violation of antitrust laws (at least in the US)? I understand the points that DRM with WMP could present a corner market, but the thing is, I don't really mind WMP. I personally use mplayer on Linux, but it takes some work to get all the Quicktime plugins installed, all the WMP codecs installed, and then the AC3/MPG4, etc., codecs installed, etc. There is something to be said about a media player that understands most codecs (obviously not Quicktime), and isn't difficult to use.
Now consider IE; go grab Firefox or Mozilla or Opera. You now have argueably a better browser, with the same amount of functionality. You only lose where people use MS-specific Javascript extensions, along with a small handful of other nuances. So they remove the program that really doesn't make a difference, in my mind, and leave the one that MS really got in trouble for. Good job EU!
Clatto! Verata! Nn... Necktie, necturn, nickle... noodle. It's an 'n' word. It's definitely an 'n' word. Windows XP Home Edition N*cough*cough*
In the words of the EU commissioner Mario Monti, the first priority for the anti-trust commision was to establish a legal precedent with respect to Microsoft.
That being the case, the name thing looks like the thin side of a wedge. Misdeeds have been defined, remedies exacted and a precedent created; the door is wide open for the EU to go after MS arse with a blowtorch. Admission of guilt? Recidivity? COntempt to court? You name it.
And how much cheaper will that "reduced" version be? Or, will it be more expensive because MS had to do extra work to weed out the mediaplayer?
get "Windows XP Professional No Media Player but Still Has That Old Media Player We Used To Call Active Movie Edition" ?
That way I don't have to delete all the links to Media Player when I have to repair my windows installation. Again.
Plus I'll have a media player that opens fast and doesn't get all obscure if I happen to click on skin mode by accident.
How about Windows Pro/Home QX edition for (Quiet eXperience)?
AT&ROFLMAO
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Actually you need not install any of these.
There are alternatives to play existing media formats, including the open source media player classic which can play windows media, quicktime and realplayer formats without a problem.
Perhaps this is a first step towards unbundling the o/s from the hardware. I look foreward to the day when I can go into a shop and choose whatever o/s I want, or none at all, without having to pay a tax to a private company.
Imagine a system administrator having two groups of users: white and black :)
May Peace Prevail On Earth
I bet it is really Windows XP 'Get the hell nagged out of you both those stupid system tray bubbles to install Windows Media Player' "Welcome to Windows XP Home Edition N, you don't have Windows Media Player installed, click here for help"
"be careful what you wish for, you may just get it"
A classic example of how (greed-driven) proprietary software patents hinder the inter-operable/cross-platform development process, and limit themselves to remedially redundant stages of deployment. =/
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Tell me that this EU is really going to benefit the little guy? It is a union made up of exceptions.
This inteference in the marketing area is just a reflection of their inteference in the world of their people.
Plus I would not doubt that there will be all sorts of new rules dictating packaging and such as well. I fully expect lots of rules governing wording so as not to offend someone.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Microsoft lawyer Horacio Gutierrez
"We fear it may cause confusion for consumers buying the product."
Is he serious? Does anyone else here remember the whole version numbering nightmare that is still going on? Since I actually work with this stuff I keep it straight, but I cannot tell you the number of times I had to explain this to coworkers, friends, and family. The following refers to the desktop operating system:
We had Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.11. Then came Windows 95. 95? Would the next update be version 95-dot-something? What's this 95b thing I heard about? Oh, it's named for the year. Then what is OEM SR2? So the next version would be Windows 98, fine. Then came Windows 98 SE. What's the difference between Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE? Then we had Windows 2000 and Windows Millenneum Edition released four months apart. What the hell is the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows Millenneum? Since the millenneum technically starts in 2001, does that mean it's the later version? Oh, now we have Windows XP. Is that like Windows NT? Is that better than Windows 2000? Than Windows Millenneum Edition?
The same egregious thing went on (and is still going on) with the server operating systems and the Office suite. Why the hell they can't stick with 4.0, 5.0, etc. is beyond me. Can you imagine the grief Redhat would get if it did something retarded like releasing Fedora 2003, followed it up with Fedora GX Edition, then Fedora 06?
But now, after all of these shenanigans, Microsoft is worried that the letter N will cause confusion for consumers. Yeah, right. I don't understand for the life of me why the product is not simply named Windows NT 6.0 Home Edition, with an option to install (or not) Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer after installation. That would avoid confusion and give people the flexibility they 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
How about "Windows LEGAL"
:)
As in a version of Windows that does not violate anti-trust law... oh wait.. that still doesn't exist
From a support perspective, I'd say that if a PC vendor bundles a machine with this OS and non-MS bundles the potential here is that the hardware vendor will only provide "support" on the products installed. So let's say they bundle with Quicktime and iTunes if the user installs MS Media Player and the user get's difficult the support desk could tell the user to uninstall MS Media Player. I think all this media player stuff is nonsense with the EU has no positive impact for anybody, and simply a waste of people's tax dollars.
Just as Netscape was once the better browser, and now Firefox is gaining again...the only reason why other players do not gain market share is they are crap filled with too many ads and features people don't care about. Make a player that is quick, simple to use, and let's you play any media format and why would anyone use anything else? Problem is that there is no such player right now.
Not sure whether you are gunning for flamebait or you simply dont understand.
...
The following points are important -
* Microsoft are convicted of violating antitrust laws and guilty of monopolistic practices.
* Linux is just a kernel -
* There are many competing linux vendors both commercial and free - you and everyone else are free to create and distribute a linux based operating system with or without whatever tools you want.
* Windows gives you no such choice or flexibility.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
What is stopping anyone from running a different media player? I'll bet anyone who despises WMP so much is alredy running a different media player... if not a different OS at all.
And... if that someone hates WMP that much... are they really going to go out and buy a new version of Windows (or otherwise "obtain" it) just to be WMP-less?
I mean seriously, in the end, who is this all for? It's not like alternatives to MS products don't exist, and in some cases thrive. Has anyone checked Firefox's marketshare lately?
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Does this version come with Bill Gates on the front, wearing a monocle and holding a small metal battleship? Inside is there a card reading "Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200"? In this box are there a bunch of property cards, all strangly stamped "Property of Microsoft. See reverse side for property EULA."?
The Peanut Gallery, Ubergeek, Biblically Sober
NCAAbbs.com: Thousands of fans, Hundreds of teams, Just one place
I am not sure why they didm't name it Windows XP EU (ee-yuuu!)
Well, have an option for your customer to pick a media player for you to install. You may offer it as a list. Perhaps other media manufactures can make good deals with offers on top of their players and so on. It is not like YOU are forbidden to give customers a choice and install various programs, players and other services they might want.
WTF are you on about? I use iTunes and Quicktime myself. You're free to install any third party app you like. And you failed to address the original poster's question as to why OS X is allowed to ship with a media player.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
This proves that NT have all along ment Not Tested.
It'll be called Windows XP Home Edition N^2 (N-squared)
not with media player
not with internet explorer
HD Trailers
Hell, yeah! I wanna get on AC's friends list. That's powerful shit! ;-D
Yes, but it's clearly not funny.
What i meant by that is - you dont have much of a choice for which version of windows that you buy, or what applications come with it. Nor are you afforded the flexibility to roll your own windows distribution. Of course you can install whatever you like (within reason) on Windows - but the fact that M$ ship mediaplayer with their os gives them an unfair advantage over the competition. When you are a convicted monopolist this practice is frowned upon.
Im sorry I failied to address the posters question about OSX but that is largely covered by the original and main point that M$ is using its position in the market place to an unfair advantage. OSX nor Linux occupy this position. And I suspect (but cannot confirm) that OSX offers a lot more flexibility during the install process as to what you can and cant chose to be installed.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Let me see if I get the party line...
1. MS is always bad, convicted monopolist and all that...
2. Apple is always good because they got screwed, so we can even overlook it when they screw end uers or promote limitations of fair use...
3. Linux is always good unless it is Red Hat, the Microsoft of the Linux world...
So if somehow the world shifted and MS was either eliminated, forced to open source or was just so massively reduced in influence what would happen? I'm willing to bet that most of /. would turn it's attention to Apple and they would be the new evil empire. Who comes after that, Red Hat or IBM? Sometimes the zealots around here strike me as being no different than the religious right creeps who flood the FCC with indecency complaints; never happy until everyone agrees with them.
This is mentioned on http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/archives/000429.ht ml#000429.
Silliness. Enjoy!
Months of negoritiations and countless hours of lawyer and Eurocrat time and all they have to show for it is a friggin name for Windoze w/o media player?
It must be nice to live in a society where the lawmakers/courts have solved all of societies ills and have nothing better to do than haggle over the name of a piece of software. I have definately got to move to that utopian society.
Do the -N versions cost the same as the non -N versions? My guess is that the price is probably the same since Media player is a free download. But then, they probably charge more for the -N version because they have to cover the cost of compliance.
That raises the question: If the prices for the non -N version are the same or less, then why would anybody buy the -N version?
This entire issue strikes me as very, very surreal.
Now, I consider myself one of the last people who will admit when Microsoft appears in the right, but this time?
MS: "People want our media player built in."
EU: "That makes them less likely to pay more for a 3rd party player."
MS: "Ummm... So?"
EU: "Take it out and offer people a choice."
MS: "Okay, here ya go."
EU: Waitasec, we don't like the word Reduced, it might make people think they've bought an inferior product.
MS: "Well, they have, you made us take out Media Player!"
EU: "We don't like it... Make it sound less like like you've taken something out."
MS: "<Blink> <Blink>... Umm... Okay, how about <rolls a 26-sided die> Windows XP N?"
EU: "Great, we love it, what does it mean?"
MS: "Mean? It doesn't mean... Oh, um... It means N ow-with-50%-more-spleem"
EU: "Okay, start selling it."
Dumb, dumb, dumb. Making them offer a choice, I agree with. Making them actually market that alternate version strikes me as far too fascist (in the very literal sense) for my liking...
Do you even know what happened there? Nah, it's more fun to jump at a wrong conclusion, eh?
The fact is more simple than that. The EU didn't as much "haggle", it just rejected Microsoft's idea of calling it "Reduced Edition". Th-th-that's all, folks.
So:
1. It didn't even involve much manpower.
2. If MS didn't want to haggle or tie up "government manpower", it could have simply not picked a name that showed outright contempt to the court's decision.
MS wasn't even ordered to change all Windows XP copies it sells, it just was ordered to _also_ sell a version without the media player alongside with the normal version. In a way that doesn't discourage people from buying that version. (E.g., no charging twice for the non-MP version.)
I'd say that MS got off pretty easily there.
It seems to me that slapping a name on it that basically says "don't buy this one" is if anything just a way to show contempt there. So it just got told "nope, that won't do. Pick another one."
That's all the "haggling out."
It's that simple.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Sure, they just have to add an N to the Windows XP Home and Professional editions, but what about the Windows Media Center Edition? Do they have to strip the media player from that one too? What would the name it?
Hi! Id' like to buy a copy of Windows XP Home +N -IE +FW -V +PERF -BSOD -DRM. Thanks
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
How about a windows version without IE ! And while we're at it, lets get rid of that lame "Network Explorer" that hangs all the time. Thus, the proper Euro name would be:
Win XP Home NIEN !
That should send the proper message.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
... Start > Control Panel > Add or Remove Programs > Add/Remove Windows Components > uncheck Windows Media Player.
...the fucking OEMs will have already put a fucking media player on the fucking computer. THIS IS NOT for the shops, it's so the pre-installers can customise their offerings.
Now if only we could have one customised to remove IE... sadly the US DoJ wussed out.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Simply not true. Windows 3.11/95 on actually affordable computers combined with what would be office was the 'killer app'. The internet got a jump start from the incredible amount of desktops in use, not the other way around. They don't know better? Look, I'm not going to argue with people form the ' cattle must be protected from its own choices'-school.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
I have an idea. Since the EU is so god damned worried about it, why don't they engineer and market their own operating system? They seem to know all about how to do it, since they're able to tell Microsoft how to do it.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
...the effect will be zero anyways.
You can download Windows Media Player 10 (if you're a Windows XP user) using broadband so fast nowadays that the download and installation is only a minor inconvenience. Besides, many, many websites (notably those from Premiere Radio Networks) are switching to Windows Media format for their media streaming, mostly because the Windows Media format works quite well in both broadband and dial-up streaming.
It's good that Microsoft will be unbundling at least one application from their operating system, but who's going to buy this? The hardcore geeks who think Microsoft is an evil monopoly are probably using something else like Linux, FreeBSD, or a Mac; and the average consumer, even in the European Union, probably doesn't care about software bundling. Actually, most consumers would probably choose the version with more features rather than specifically choose the version with a reduced feature set. Can you imagine McDonald's continuing to sell Big Macs but also selling Big Macs H, which have removed the extra beef paddy, the slice of cheese, the sauce, etc. so that it will be healthier?
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
There's no practical effect from this, but it gives government regulators something to crow about "We took on MS and made them submit!", and MS doesn't care that much because its trivial to add back to XP. Because as soon as people want to use Napster or a bunch of other stuff, the'll need WMP.
/. care because it seems like its doing something against evil MS, but we all know this is a meaningless empty gesture.
A few people on
And it was your tax dollars at work. Probably cost about 50M Euros to get this concession. They should have spent it whores and cocaine down in brussels; at least then somebody would have had some with it.
It seems Microsoft is really bad at naming things... .net, c#, me, word, and I am sure there are a dosen others, but now THE FRIGGING LETTER N??
Do they have no respect for the ability to search for anything??
You can be damn sure that if you query for "iWhatever" you will find it, but not so with Microsoft's products.
http://brandonbloom.name
I'm not so sure about this. It depends on how you define the scope. Is the scope all personal computers? Or computers of a certain architecture? Clearly, MS dominates the x86 market. It does not clearly dominate across all personal computers. But if MS is bad for dominating x86 market, then Apple clearly dominates the PPC market - why are they then not equally bad? Linux dominates nothing in particular.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
No car manufacturer has 90% of the market.
If one of them did, you might see anti-trust action, and restrictions on what kinds of radios they could bundle. (e.g. Sirus vs XM vs FM vs leaving the slot open so there can be competition.)
It's really very simple: a company that has a monopoly has to abide by different rules, because otherwise it can completely slant the market for other products and leverage its monopoly into other areas. Microsoft is restricted in ways other companies aren't, because Microsoft is a monopoly (as per the legal definition) and the other companies aren't. Got it?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
By whining about the great expense needed to not include additional software in windows they (AFAIK) dodged having to provide the "N" version at a reduced price.
This kind of defeats the point of this whole thing. Why would you buy the N version if MS is going to charge you for media player anyway? MS should be forced to reduce the price. The officials can use creative accounting to help determine how much for MS.
Basically they should take all Development costs that Microsoft deducted for Mediaplayer since the first alpha version. Divide this number by the total number of combined XP sales. Then apply the average lifetime markup for MS Office/OS products and subtract the total from the price of the "N" versions.
Your analogy is invalid.
I think this analogy might better illustrate what is going on.
There are three car companies.
Big "M" motors makes 94% of the cars in the world.
Big "L" motors makes hobbyist cars for about 3% of the market.
Big "A" motors makes sports cars for 3% of the market.
Big "M" motors introduces a new kind of stereo in all their cars that plays a new kind of music disk. It is a reasonably high quality stereo. Before long the only kind of music disks sold for -any- stereo are big "M" stereos. Not just in cars but also in the home, your boom box, everything.
What happened was that big "M" motors used their CAR monopoly to create a new STEREO monopoly.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
They will stick iTunes and Quicktime on there and everyone will be really happy and sing all day.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
I want to buy the Windows XP Reduced Security Flaws version.
I guess you're right. Putting "Reduced Edition" on a product that has had features removed from it, obviously and incontrovertibly shows outright contempt for a court decision. It's that simple. We're all familiar with Microsoft's history of arrogantly slapping names on its own products that say "don't buy this." How could anyone not see that? I bow to your superior psychic ability.
The N stands for: Non, Niet, Neine
Wow, Windows XP Pro N ! I hope they did not have to debate about the name. Are we still debating if Microsoft is a monopoly? We all know they are. Now once your know that, we also know that as soon as they add software to the Windows Platform. It automaticaly get adopted by a majority of lazy or uninformed user. Mozilla/Firefox get 10 to 20% of educated user, will it ever reach 50% ? Same thing for Linux, I use it on my Laptop, but still how many people are using it ?.. There is a VERY big hype around it, it is very popular and still not mainstream. Microsoft is a monopoly.. What does MS need to do to be split?
EUnix?
Regardless, it's great that the EU rejected Microsoft's suggested name of "Reduced Media Edition." That was just Microsoft's attempt to discourage people from buying a version of Windows that didn't have a pointlessly bundled media player. "Hey, this one say 'Reduced Media,' so it must not be as good as the normal version." All that's different is that Windows Media Player isn't tied into the OS and is available for download seperately, as are any other media players. But a normal person wouldn't have known that from the name. Nice try, Microsoft.
then go out and buy another copy of uncrippled Windows when they realise their mistake.
Or, they won't spend another equivalent $100 US and will instead realize they can download Windows Media Player, or any other player, for free.
It's not "crippled." It just doesn't ship with a non-removable Windows Media Player installed. Please explain exactly how that "cripples" Windows.
Is anyone else disturbed that govts are interfering with free trade to point now that they're naming their products for them?
Vote for Pedro
Yes, Microsoft does have a mile long history. One of trying to bully the courts into submission via massive anti-government propaganda.
/. standards) I'm usually writing lately.
Remember where the word "astroturfing" comes from? Some of us haven't forgotten yet. In case you don't remember: during the anti-trust trial in the USA, MS paid people to create the impression that everyone is pro-MS, pro-monopoly and anti-DOJ. They pretty much tried to make it look like the government better back down ASAP or face massive population dissent backlash.
That in addition to the direct MS PR about how the government and anti-trust laws "stiffle innovation" and whatnot. Or direct threats that they'll move to another country and stop paying taxes in the US if they're not allowed to break the laws in the US. Etc.
Basically, again: an attempt to bully the US government into submission.
So that's what I see in that "Reduced Edition" bullshit. Yes, something fitting their long history of anti-government propaganda. "Don't buy the version the government made us make" is, in fact, _exactly_ the kind of message that fits MS's history.
And again, IMHO the EU was pretty civilized about it. They just told MS "nope, try another name".
And finally, I don't see MS naming any other product "Reduced Edition". XP Home Edition had features removed too, and it wasn't called "Reduced Networking Edition", no? Or MS Works isn't called "Office Reduced Edition." _No_ marketter will willingly put words like "reduced" or "less" on a box, unless they want to make a point. Those are words that tell the public "don't buy it". "More" is good, "less" is bad. (See euphemisms like "more taste per callory" in sweets ads, instead of saying "less calories.") So I have a hard time believing that "XP Reduced Media Edition" was anything _but_ a heavy handed attempt to mock the court order.
Heh. Didn't think I'd get to say the word "astroturfing" again, what with the relatively pro-MS messages (by
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
What files? I can't find anything indicating what you claim, and given that Windows XP N hasn't been released yet, I can't imagine that anyone has actually tested this.
I'm sure that comparing the installations image-to-image would yield a few differences, but based solely on what I've read, I would expect that a Windows XP Home Edition N installation + Windows Media Player would be functionally identical to a Windows XP Home Edition installation.
Do you know something different?
The current settlement has a time limit of 5 years.
"V.Termination
1. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by the Court."
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9462.htm
I installed NT4 recently and it was a real bitch installing all the patches. Ironically the first one I had to install was IE6 so that Windows Update would work :)
That would make sense except it hasn't killed competetion in the media player market. Look at how many there are. Media players seem to be a particularly bad example to jump on.
Perhaps the EC wants to help keep it that way instead of whacking the media player market over the head and carting it off?
Microsoft has pretty much set the price of a media player at $0, while recovering its media player development costs from OS licencing. Anyone else wanting to compete in this market pretty much needs to keep their developemnt and licencing costs around $0 or find other ways to try to maintain themselves as a going concern. This is a pretty effective barrier to competition.
From there, Microsoft is also benefiting from a "network" effect, where the simple fact that they give everyone their media player with their OS, makes others more likely to make content, offers, etc. for the Microsoft Media Player. Again, a pretty powerful force against competition.
Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
First thing I thought of though was the Lindows/Linspire thing that the EU brought about.
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
I wouldn't be surprised if a "sale" or "new" sticker gets put over the N.
that "shit" was already taken!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
It seems to me that browsers would be a much better app to pick the fight over. Banning IE (or at least Active X) could only make things better.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's