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?
Now when can we get Windows XP Reduced Internet Explorer edition?
Windows XP Home Edition Neutered
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
...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
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!
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
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
It'll be called Windows XP Home Edition N^2 (N-squared)
not with media player
not with internet explorer
HD Trailers
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.