Slashdot Mirror
PC Makers See Little Reason to Deploy XP N
suitepotato writes "In this article, Ingrid Marson reports to CNet News that in a small survey of companies such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo, there are no real plans to deploy Microsoft's Windows XP N which was the version required by the European Union. It would seem that despite the rants of anger towards Microsoft that they were unfairly bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP, the public at large would not seem to agree and is not actually demanding any such stripped down version. Perhaps the EU's actions were unnecessary?"
More like wrong action when action should have been taken.
I don't see a problem with Microsoft bundling any software of their own with Microsoft Windows XP such as Windows Messenger, Windows Media Player, MS Internet Explorer and others. What I have a problem with is the inability to uninstall said media player and other programs without severely hindering the operating system to the point of crashing or worse, incompatibility with programs that don't themselves correctly interface to the default browser, IM client and media player.
That is the real problem I see. Not the exclusion or inclusion of programs or their efforts to play favorites (come on... within reason!) with their own software. Hell, I'd do the same thing. But making it so you can not remove a software program by choice without resorting to some advanced (for the home user) hacking or third party (possibly buggy, problematic or worse - trojaned) program or scripts to do it for you.
What we really need is Microsoft to allow removal of any and all programs that are not basic for an operating system. Yes, even Internet Explorer. By itself, if it weren't tied into the OS itself and able to be run in locked memory away from other programs (to eliminate potential points of attack) it's fine. Older versions weren't so bad because they were just that... stand alone.
I'm not even a fan of the KDE Konqueror(SP?) browser being integrated. While it's great to have a browser by default, the potential problems that can happen (taking out your shell, yes it's happened, AND your X DE) are too great for my taste. The internet hasn't been safe for a LONG time. Even the bandaid of an included firewall with SP2 won't solve much in the long run.
Correct engineering of software programs and their development, it seems, are almost lost. Where are the programming and engineering teams with good ideas with the skill and desire to pull it off?
well do you ?
The people who really were hurt were the competitors. If they were hurt to the point of being driven out of business, -then- the public would be hurt. The whole point of protection from monopoly abuse is to catch these situations -before- the public suffers irreparable harm....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I figured this would happen... All the EU did is waste millions in taxpayer money tracking down the evil microsoft for something that no one even really gives a rip about. Not to mention the people who DO get XP N will likely go to the MS site and download the media player as soon as they realize it's not there...
These actions against Microsoft are just a political ploy by all the haters. People like Windows the way it is, it is chosen to run on more PCs than any other operating system!
Why would an OEM provide a product with less features, if it costs them the same to supply it?
When Apple does it it's good. When Microsoft does it it's bad.
And when Microsoft stops doing it, nobody buys it.
I won't deploy it either, but then, I don't use Windows at all.
I like this quote myself...
Microsoft said it bears no responsibility for making PC manufacturers use Windows XP N. "Microsoft has made these products available through its standard distribution channels," a company representative said. "Whether or not customers or distributors offer this product in Europe is a decision for individual computer manufacturers, enterprise customers and retailers."
Microsoft has been known to strongarm companies to carry a certian version of their Windows Operating Systems, with pricing or threats of removing licences so the statement of "...is a decision for individual computer manufacturers...", is in my opinion, a lie.
Since when has MS taken a lax approach to what version of Windows OS retailers and OEM's install on their systems?
The EU Commission made the wrong decision. Microsoft was taken into court because the competition complained about their ways to keep their monopoly in place. But penalizing the consumer is not the right way to go. When I got a new Windows XP computer, I had no idea other media players existed. The EU Commission should have asked Microsoft to document the integrity of their API. They took the issue by the wrong end of the stick, thus punishing the consumer and doing nothing for the competition.
"It would seem that despite the rants of anger towards Microsoft that they were unfairly bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP,"
The rants are that we PAY FOR IT even if we don't use it. XP N doesn't fix that, its still dumping, you still pay for it as part of the cost of Windows.
Of course the EU sanctions were misguided. That is what happens when you ask Microsoft's competitors for input rather than their customers.
The rants of anger only come from those that want to use governments to destroy MS at any cost.
So,it looks like this whole action by th EU adds up to about, hmmm, let's see, NOTHING.
The problem is, Microsoft is still allowed to offer its version that includes all the programs that were stripped from the N version in the EU as well. And the EU sanctions are not a reaction to customer demand for a stripped down version, but to complaints by competitors. In that regard, the EU decision seems a bit schizophrenic - they demand a version without all the media player stuff, but then they don't make sure that that's the only version available. And since, I guess, the N version is probably not one cent cheaper to vendors, there's little incentive for them to install it.
Why don't they distribute Winamp with their PCs as a media player? Most people I know go out and download it, then it up to play all their CDs and MP3s. Only thing that they might use Windows Media player for is movie clips, or things that have Windows DRM which need WMP.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
EU citizens are not wild about MS's dominance. In fact, they are not wild about anything from the USA dominating. But, if you ask them to do away with the item, they will of course, say no. And BTW, it is no different here. For all of our freedom fry talk, etc. French Wine is still served in a big way, as is French Pate, French Brie, French Frog Legs (delicious), etc.
From a friend of mine who was recently at a GOP fund raiser that had Cheney there, they told me that there were several french wines and that they were drank.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As an average consumer, I wouldn't care about the anti-competitive effects of Microsoft bundling WMP, IE, etc. with the OS. As far as I can see, I get stuff for free which seems to work just fine for my purposes. This kind of reaction is similar to what I see when "people" protest Walmart's effect on Mom-Pop businesses. What should I care about Mom-Pop businesses as long as I get low prices? I go to a shop to buy stuff, not to socialize with the owners.
Similarly, what do I care about two-bit developers who can't hold their own against WMP, IE, etc being bundled with the OS? If their products are superior to WMP, IE etc, and if I feel compelled to buy them, I would. Don't force me to download what I would otherwise get bundled with my OS.
The problem is that the prosecutors (plaintiffs?) were trying to achieve a certain result - spanking Microsoft. To accomplish this, they used the method to hand: demanding debundling.
This produces the weird result that people want the opposite of what the prosecutors claimed they wanted. The prosecutors knew this at the beginning. But they pushed for the unwanted thing anyway, to punish Microsoft. Who probably don't care.
So anyway, it's absurd, but absurd for what at least some people probably think is a good reason. Personally, I think they should just tweak the laws so that they produce the desired result - open APIs - without some kind of weird, tortured legal theory. That, or just don't prosecute this kind of case.
Why is it that the most obvious solution is the one that nobody wants to even consider. Don't fine, don't go thru infinite anti-trust challanges, don't drag the vendors into it. Just nullify enforcement of Microsoft copyright and licences until the matter is worked out and watch how screaming fast Microsoft does a complete about face.
Unless the price difference OEMs pay for XPN vs XP is large enough*, the OEMs won't care.
* - Defined as greater then the cost of bundling/supporting some other media player.
Seriously though, who would actually pay just as much to get Windows without WMP? Its not like having WMP stops you from installing the media player of your choice, and it wouldn't be fair to make them charge less for not including a product that really isn't worth anything to begin with...
One thing I can tell you is that the IT department at the company where I work has bastardized our Windows even more than Microsoft. We have no media player, no solitaire, nothing fun :)
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
Screw That!
I just advised (cant believe I am admitting this here) my Aunt to buy a $500 Dell with Win XP home. It doesn't come with MS Word?! I comes bundled with WordPerfect.
Seriously that would be nice if it had both, choice is nice, but bundling it with WP while almost everyother WinXP box has Word is bogus.
I want every product (or at least the choice of every product) that Microsoft develops (or buys the rights to) installed on my computer when I purchase Windows.
But Keep Messanger Out.
The whole issue has to do with the home user market, not corporate users. Duh-uh.
Never mind that if there is competition, there is no monopoly.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
1. Promote New Windows XP N - less Media Player
2. Risk Price Point/Breaks with OS vendor by promoting a product they never wanted to make.
3. ??????
4. Profit!!!!!
Because the monopoly is working. People simply do not know better.
We have to get the word out. We have to tell people why this option is better.
The EU laid the path, we have to do the footwork.
RTFA again for the best results.
The decisions made by the EU may be pretty 'useless' for the current XP generation, but I think not for Longhorn.
Most consumers (I'm talking about home users, no business users) made the switch to XP already, and they're not (re)installing a stripped down version.
For Longhorn, however, many people will probably make a well predominated decision about a stripped down version of the OS.
Most people don't care if they're using quicktime, realplayer, windows media player etc. They probably won't even notice the difference. But if there wasn't the choice, then they would notice, because the media player available would suck if it had no competition to drive it on. People don't realise it's important to them that there's competition between MS and real (if they did, there wouldn't be any need for the EU to act, people could sort it out themselves). But that doesn't mean it isn't.
I am trolling
The right or ethical thing to do not always equals what the public deems necessary. For example, most people are not aware of the patent issue, just when they bump into it. I'd hazard the guess that one of the foundations of a government or union is ideology. To give a exaggareted example, if you could jail 10 man, 9 guilty and 1 innocent, would you do it? It would certainly seem economically good, could even meet public support, but is it the right thing to do?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
What were the EU thinking?, and why on earth does anyone think that the integrated tools can't be replaced with others?
... and why does Apple get away with this?, video editing, dvd burning, internet browsing, you name it, it's in there.
I use Winamp for audio, Firefox for the web, Skype for IM, all on a standard XP Pro system.
Do they really think this is helping anyone to release a crippled version?, do I really want to walk my mother through installing a pile of 3rd party tools when she receives her new PC?.
Seems that it's in pretty good shape, power-uses can do whatever they want, and beginners can be up and running quickly.
Grrr.... what a waste of time and energy!
Can I recieve the same level of support as they gave Windows ME?
Well, of course nobody is going to re-deploy. Thats expensive, time consuming, etc.
Basically, MS should have been punished by market regulators and brought into compliance. They have been. Under or over punished, maybe, but thats another thread.
I don't think the amount of people who actually use it really matters; the fact that its wasted MS money in developing this version is just punishment, and I can't see anybody but corperate apologists and MS shareholders whining about that. If they do have a problem with it, maybe they can be a little more vigilent about ensuring that the company they have money in is more careful about using its might in the market place in order to sll & market in markets adjacent to the OS market.
As for me, screw a new operating system, just provide me with a patch that allows me to remove WMPlayer and IExplorer from my existing install, and I'll make the call myself, thanks.
"Old man yells at systemd"
"...a small survey of companies...seem [to indicate] that the public at large [snip] is not actually demanding any such stripped down version." There would seem to be something wrong with this argument. "small set of companies" != "public at large". Water is blue because it is under the sky. Land is under the sky. Land is blue. Mmm, hmm...
One thing I don't understand is why it's okay for Apple to bundle iChat (w/Rendezvous or .Mac), iTunes, and Quicktime but not for Microsoft to bundle similar item. Can someone explain?
Well, I donno, still seems like a step in the right direction. Competition, right?
not really. any reduction of microsofts power is a victory for planet earth.
Is that the worst name possible for a product? What does it mean?
If I recall correctly the EU specifically requested that MS change the name to this from "Reduced Media version".
All it does though is make it incrediably confusing for the consumer, the one they are trying to protect.
If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
Perhaps the EU's actions were unnecessary?
Aren't they always?
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
... the EU should have mandated the new edition to be cheaper than the Home XP? If I'd have to pay the same (or even a higher) price to get less, then guess what I would do. Without mandating it to be cheaper MS will probably resort to this kind of tactics to push their media-player.
Just for the sake of argument, what about other companies doing the same thing? Can you use Mac OS X without having iTunes, iPhoto, Quicktime, Safari, etc. installed? Let's say I like Konfabulator better than Dashboard. Is it possible to uninstall the latter?
I believe that the playing field should be kept level, and that other companies should be treated just as Microsoft was by the EU.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What 'necessary' actions as the EU taken recently?
XP N doesn't directly help PC makers or users. The only thing I can think of now is that Apple or Real could make some sort of deal with PC makers where they install XP N and include QuickTime or RealPlayer. Apple or Real could then pay the PC makers a bit and in return get more users. They could also include a free month of premium services and I'm sure some people would sign up for them after the free trial expires.
The first thing most users will do after getting XP N is install WMP because they want to get sounds, video, etc. It was a nice idea to deconstruct the product but, well, just like with Internet Explorer being integrated circa Win98, you have to start with something before you get something else.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Perhaps they should have questioned the people who complained, the other medei player companied, rather than just the sytem builders who this doesnt really effect?
Wasteful government spending can apply anywhere.
SYS 64738
The problem is that this is mostly an story told by those who do not like Microsoft products, while the vast majority of people simply don't have these problems. And, in many was, it's just plain hypocritical that major issues with you favorite OS de jur get brushed off as either no existent or very minor, yet things that the vast majority of users don't have problems with get propped up as some huge major issue. In short, it's all politics and religion, and no actual sudstance.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I don't see gripes over Linux distros coming with Konqueror (which is a godawful P.O.S.)...
Hey...he's right! Konqueror does suck ass! I've always hated it...why should I have to put up with it???
I'm gonna demand a refund right now!
Oh, wait...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
They're on a roll, might as well go all the way. After all, they're doing it for "the people". It's not like this was all a result of RealNetworks lobbying. No siree!
*taps foot, looks at watch*
-Randy
For those who want the stripped version, let them have it. For those that want the non stripped version, let them have it. Compare the percentages of those who want the stripped versions verses those who don't. Microsoft should only have to pay a percentage of the 500,000,000 euro-per-day fine (the exact same percentage of those who want the non-stripped version. Example for those who don't get it: 78% of the people want the non-stripped version. Microsoft pays 78% of 500,000,000 euros per day (or a measly 390000000 euros per day). They get 10 times as much in compound interest per day, so they can chalk it up to pocket change, and move on.
Of course vendors will say no, to do otherwise would violate secret agreements with microsoft to conspire to defeat EU sanctions by any means. That includes not allowing the EU consumer the option of buying a system from anyone with the new cut down version of window$$ installed. Manufacturers and suppliers are not under the court order and do not have to comply so they are free to collude with M$ to defraud the public. Doubt this post will ever see the light of day! Let this site print it if it dares incur m$ wrath.
Not to troll, but the EU is out of touch with the general population of at least this country on practically every issue, I don't see why they would make the right decision on this.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
How is saying that you don't use a piece of software suddenly equal to bashing?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
...part of this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Dell, HP, etc., don't ship machines with XP N because there's no demand for it. Customers don't demand XP N because it's not supported on the new machines they're looking to buy from Dell, HP, etc.
Given that Dell, HP, etc are NOT shipping units with XP N, we might restate as "the degree to which people prefer XP N to XP is LESS THAN the degree to which they prefer buying from a reputable manufacturer than buying from an off-brand manufacturer."
It doesn't tell us that XP N is seen as better/worse than XP. Just that people would prefer a Dell with XP to a white box with XP N.
I'll certainly be investigating installing this on our school network machines when we move to windows xp (we're now licenced, but running windows 2000 still as we've only recently upgraded the last of the legacy machines that only had win2k oem licences)
Right now, the students use windows media player, and the integrated search to constantly listen to online radio and browse lyrics etc, completely crippling our bandwidth. A lot of the material is not suitable for the pre-teen kids in the prep school, either. Add all the scripting vulnerabilities in WMP, along with the DRM, and I'd be very happy to get rid of it and its problems. Oh, and they're constantly filling up their userspace with music ripped in WMP from CD's and then trying to look all innocent when the quota system warnings run out and their account gets disabled.
Getting rid of WMP is really tricky on vanilla windows xp, and breaks all sorts of other things.
I for one will be testing windows xp n with media player classic and/or quintessential player as the alternative that still lets the computers be used for education, rather than the distracting entertainment boxes they usually end up being in lessons.
The fact that it might slow the massive growth of windows media player codecs only on music websites is no bad thing either.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Care to elaborate on how they were hurt ? This is something that's never been quite clear to me.
Oh, you thought this all was about unfair competition vs. global politics?
Uh huh.
My hackles go up when anyone says that. If you want to limit your own choices, fine.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Perhaps the EU's actions were unnecessary?
Or perhaps the actions were useless because they were poorly designed and did not address the real problem? OK bundling is bad because it allows a monopoly to extend their monopoly. Forcing MS to offer a version without the bundled application is useless because everyone who buys Windows still has to pay for it.
Here comes the inevitable analogy...
The electric company has a monopoly on electricity distribution in any given area. If you want electricity you have to buy from them or go to great lengths to create your own. Imagine if the electric company raised everyone's rates by $10 a month. Now imagine they took that $10 and bought ice cream which they gave away for free to all their customers. Not all of their customers wanted the ice cream and but some liked it. Now the ice cream manufacturers all lost all their business, complained, and sued. The government, in its infinite wisdom decreed that the electric company had to offer electricity without free ice cream, they did not, however, say it had to be cheaper than the other package. The result is nothing. The solution does not stop the bad behavior.
The media player part of the settlement was completely useless. The only parts that were not useless were the parts requiring sharing interoperability information and even those are severely watered down. Obviously if your choice is $60 for electricity or $60 for electricity and ice cream most people will choose the latter. What needs to happen is MS needs to be required to offer the media player only as a separate application. OEMs can add it or Realplayer or both or neither but MS can't give incentives or breaks to OEMs that include windows media player. That would fix the problem. That will likely never happen because MS has too much money and politicians are too corrupt.
Except in Nebraska....Or in Europe...
Peter Corcoran
Well, "un"bundling, but yes. The problem was abuse-of-monopoly, and bundling was just one part of that. Unbundling couldn't possibly "make right" the damage. What ever happened to "Justice"? In the U.S.A. I know it's sold to the biggest corporate bidder, but it's sad that the rest of the world is being forced into that same straitjacket.
When the court system is prevented from using more creative remedies, they are left with ones that didn't really address the problem ... just treating a minor symptom.
More creative and effective solutions would however been things
that MSFT could probably have prevented ... like putting
equal investment into bundling "competitive" products for
a few years, starting with making the APIs and protocols
no longer "proprietary".
In sort ... this wasn't the right means, but it was
the only one available.
So no surprise that the ends didn't match.
Konqueror rendered the slashdot homepage properly years before Mozilla ever got the hang of it...
Your post is 'just another example of' a fanboy who talks crap and then doesn't provide any evidence to back it up.
Hey, leave that Offtopic button alone.
When these matters end up in court, the rulings take a long time to be formulated and the eventual consequences seem to be on the long term only.
If Microsft was forced to install Quicktime & Realplayer on each install, we would actually get something usefull. The first thing users might see on a fresh Win XP N is a browser opening: "Sorry, playing this movie is not possible, but click this link to download a player! -> links to WMP.)
If somebody can enlighten me with a factual case where a court order got Microsoft to do anything good for the general public? (I know a lot of patent related lawsuits got settled, but those are mostly not for the general public but only for the lucky small companies threatened by the new big beast?)
Dependency hell? =>
...and no actual sudstance.
I'm sure you means substance, but I digress.
I must not be getting your point. True, many people don't care what is by default installed on their systems and will happily be using those programs. Most often, when I offer people choices and show them the differences, without a slant, and give them the opportunity (KEY WORD THERE), more often or not, they will go with something that is not made by microsoft - with the exception of the operating system.
Yes.. even if it's' free and included. However some still choose to keep the MS defaults because of either the UI is what they're used to, or simply don't want to relearn something else... even if it is better in their own opinion.
I don't mind MS products to be honest with you. I prefer to use MS Office 2003 supplied by my company than OpenOffice.org. It is faster, and I have plenty of hard drive space (300+gig) to play with. I can't stand the media player or messenger for two reasons:
1) I prefer Winamp over almost anything based on a decision made years ago. It is just something I like MORE than the others in comparison.
2) Gaim will allow me to be signed on to AIM, ICQ, MSN in a single window and allow me to have tabbed conversations. Even allow me to log onto multiple accounts of the same protocol where as you would have to use a third party hack to do that with the default clients. (I like to keep family, work, gaming buddies separated and do so with a reason).
YMMV
Acually you can still be convicted for abuse of a monopoly, even if there is a small amount of competition. 90% is a sufficient market share to be able to abuse it. Usually you do not want things to get too bad before taking action against the offenders.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Linux advocates deprecate Windows, citing its lack of bundled software as one of its flaws. But when Microsoft bundles a media player with its operating system, it's an unfair monopolization.
That countries like France who currently hold the head position in EU have no faith in the EU as indicated by there NO vote (same vote they told the UK they couldn't have few years back, bless them).
So what can we conclude, europeans (me included) who care about our media player are intelligent enough to sort it ourselfs and those that are not intelligent enough to take the windows XP CD out of the sealed envelope would rather have something that
just works out of the box.
Now if the EU had given us an install that gave the user a choice of X,Y,Z media players then it might hvae had an impact, but no. They went take it all out. Of course PC manufacturers probably did a few consumer tests and found out that by saving a few euro's on an install (and were talking a few euros's given OEM costs) compared to long list of users who phone up saying how they cant play microsoft video's and mp3's out fo the box. They probably went hmmmm extra support calls or bung couple extra bucks at the end product directly.
Moral is if there is a problem and its an issue you can garantee that any form of goverment will take a long time to find a solution and end up given us a solution that might have been viable day one of the issue but years down the line is a total waste of time and beyond keeping a few lawyers employed does nothing of value for the public at large. Especialy given that the part of the public that does care have already addressed the issue themselves from day one though the power of consumer spending and choice and just install Linux or whatever in the first place. Bottom line those of the public that care already dealt with it and those that dont care, well, they dont give a monkies either way as there oblivious to the problem if indeed it is a problem, which you have to ask... is it a problem or yet more beuroratic phallis waving after the party ahs finished.
Would 1.00 Euro be cheaper enough? You can't have any semblence of a free economy with the government arbitrarily setting prices.
I agree with what alot of you have said. Having Media Player or Internet explorer be standard with th windows operating system is not the problem. If anything, its a good thing, increases the operational and compatability standard of what tasks the lowest level of PC can handle. The issue I belive is not the bundleing, but the sheer extent of intergration these "applications" have with the operating system. They almost are as much a part of the operating system as explorer, and no "application" should be that integrated, its all about being modular.
Why do nearly all online content providers provie Quicktime and WMV streams, but not DivX/ XVid/ Theora? I suppose at least one of the former can have DRM embedded in it, which is a plus for the providers, but apart from that, what are the advantages of the former over the latter? Do they give significantly better quality for the same filesize? Or is that .WMV will play, out of the box, on about 90% of PCs (Windows PCs, that is)?
This is the problem - Microsoft have used their effective monopoly to create yet another defacto (closed; patented) standard that everyone uses, irrespective of it's actual merit. In other words, they have leveraged their monopoly in one area (OS's) to gain a near monopoly (with bonus lock-in!) in another (media), which as I understand it is flat-out illegal. For recognising this and actually (shock! horror!) attempting to lay down the law, I can only applaud the EU. However, as others have stated, the proposed sanctions were utterly misguided, and impacted only the consumer, if anyone at all.
I'm not entirely sure what the perfect solution to this would have been - the only ones I can think of are banning not WMP but the .wmv codec itself from inclusion in the default install, or specifying that Microsoft must include DivX, XVid etc playing abilities (if they don't already) out of the box. But both of these are just as lame, and I think this particular transgression simply can't be punished in any sane way, alas. Maybe the other case - with the EU asking MS to open up the Samba spec so that OSS groups can use it - will be more successful, but an article the other day suggests that it won't. Oh well.
I don't get what the deal is. If anything Microsoft is the one being treated unfairly in ALL of these "monopoly" related trials. Heck to imply that MS is a monopoly is to disregard Linux, BSD, Mac or any other Misc operating systems as Non-existent. Not that MS has ever actually been accused of that, simply "monopolistic practices". Glad to know you can have those without being a monopoly... it makes me feel like I have a chance too! Like maybe one day I will acquire monopolistic powers so I can like force my boss to give me a raise because I am the only one good at doing my job.
If you apply the logic people use against MS to competitors, such as Apple or even Linux distributions the arguments fall apart as ridiculous:
Apple should be forced to remove QuickTime and Safari.
No Linux distribution should be allowed to place a media player and a web browser in the same installation package.
KDE needs Konqueror removed! It deters people form using Lynx and firefox!
Heck lets get down to the real point. Nothing should ever be bundled with anything. Your OS should be a kernel and you need to buy a separate piece of software to actually do anything!
None of this makes sense. The people that are complaining, the "3rd parties" like real (has anyone ever mentioned another media play in the game) and Netscape suck. They made bad products a better product overtook them. End of line.
Look how quickly firefox took off! Its amazing how many people will switch when something equal or better comes around... but wait I thought we were all brain washed by bill gates' zombie ray?! Too many people just seem to thing big business is bad and immoral. That's fine! Frankly I hate corporate America, but... at least hate everybody fairly and equally. Redhat MS and Apple oh and IBM and Sony should all die horrible deaths because they are the oppressors. Technology should be made by hand... in my garage... with duct tape and crazy glue!
I shudder to think of a present where real player had become the de-facto standard.
I can also only imagine the flame wars that would have run rampant if this mentality had existed when evil MS integrated EDIT into MSDOS. Destroying the vital text editor market for competitors!!!
The only lesson I have learned from all of this is that governments are slower and dumber and more susceptible to bandwagon mentalities than I expected.
Flame away...
While I like some of what you said, /. is open to all 'politics and religion'. The M$ products have a real problem, while I accept that utility software will continue to be included with Windows, it would benefit the customer immensely to be able to pick and choose, and uninstall things. But M$ has never served the customer this way.
Worse, media players and browsers aren't simply utility software, they're more akin to TV and stereos. No one wants Sony limiting what you can watch on TVs they sell, or a CD player that gives MTV ads every time you turn it on. M$ has simply abused their monopoly power in this realm - and the courts agree. Personally, I pay too much for a computer to have M$ shove their advertising down my throat after purchase.
The analogy is a car. I can't change the engine without a lot of money and grief, but I ought to be able to change the CD player.
- Real/Apple put up enough cash to make it worth the PC vendor's time.
- Microsoft not play games with licensing that make this cost prohibitive.
One of these things didn't happen.dsmmnky
Perhaps they should have fined Microsoft and asked that they open all formats and protocols, give all patents to public domain and issue a public excuse to everyone.
This is exactly the issue... it's not so much that the general public wants the software to be separated, but it's better for everyone (even the people that can't find the "any" key) if MS is not allowed to fall down that slippery slope they've demonstrated they will abuse.
If it has to be supported, it will be, and that will help prevent MS from exploiting their position again.
C'on now! Who would want to by a stripped down version of anything? Unless, it's Jessica Simpson of course!
"It's not rocket science, Smithers! It's only brain surgery!" --Mr. Burns
The sentence you quote is still all horked, because the allegation wasn't that they did this stuff to maintain their monopoly (restrictive licenses with OEMs on the other hand...). The allegation is that they're using their monopoly in one industry to help them compete in another industry.
Anyway: no contradiction whatsoever. You are an idiot. Shut up.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I find that the bundling of MSN/Windows Messenger is much more of a legal problem than WMP. IM one of the most used features of average computers users these days. All the "ordinary people" I know use Messenger, because it comes bundled with Windows, and won't switch to Linux or Mac OS X when they find out that they cannot have all the features, (personalised photos, winks etc.)that the all their friends have with the Windows version. I'm sure this issue will be raised by some countries soon.
Microsoft has said that people *choose* their OS because it is "better" - this would have been a chance to prove it.
Just try to buy any computer without Microsoft's proprietory Windows operating system installed and without the approximately $70 licensing fee included in the price and you will find out how hard it stil is why Microsoft is still a monopolistic organization and needs to be treated accordingly. Sorry, but Microsoft is and will almost certainly remain an evil company in many respects.
it bundled with Microsoft Works Suite 2005 (which comes with Word 2002).
Well, they did mandate it to not be more expensive. They did not go so far to mandate it to be cheaper.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
The problem with forcing Microsoft to unbundle WMP or IE is that it comes too late, the product has already been accepted by the market. The legal tools for handling this kind of behaviour are unsufficient. Since the products are distributed at no cost, customers see no reason to switch. The only way to prevent this would have been to force Microsoft to distribute WMP or IE in a similar way to their competitors, i.e. charge for it or at least make it a separate download. That way the market may have decided by choice instead by default setting.
To stop Microsoft from doing it again (Desktop Search? Music downloads via XBox2) they would have to be forced to compete in the market BEFORE they achieve a dominant position. I don't think this is legally possible.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Has anyone noticed that the main reason why Microsoft became an internet monopoly (bundling software i.e. IE) is the main reason for its poor security record?
They're digging their own grave. (And yes, I say Microsoft should split between Microsoft-OS and Microsoft-Office)
That's true, but why do so many developers (even the exalted Quickbooks when it comes to IE) rely so heavily on Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player? Because MS bundled it. If this bundle didn't occur, all that would happen is developers would resort to installing 3rd party apps again (remember Myst for Windows 95 and the Quicktime Installer?). I don't think this is a bad thing.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
There sure is a lot of Microsoft ass-kissing getting put up on this site these days.....I would say this story misses the point. The point wasn't what consumers wanted the point was unfair advantage in the industry. It's not surprising that a bunch of companies that are in microshafts pocket aren't gonna bundle XPN, I'm sure they're all scared of having their prices go up the next time they negotiate a deal. I do think that the penalty misses the point as well. Unbundling Media Player doesn't seem to solve the problem. Opening up the interface data that Sun wanted seemed to be the point. Personally I can't see anything wrong with Media Player, now Internet Explorer, that's a different can of worms........
Hey, you think your house is cool?
All the EU did is waste millions in taxpayer money tracking down the evil microsoft for something that no one even really gives a rip about.
If they were that worried about the cost they could just ask Microsoft to pay out another $500 million... but I don't think the money was the main reason for doing this. This is about allowing competition back into the market. They forgot one thing though: they should have forced Microsoft to reduce the price of the Media-Player-less edition.
Next on my wish list - IE-less version.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
The new version of windows offers no benefit to the end user or PC manufacturers. It was meant to provide benefit to companies like REAL, who completely failed to establish the necessary contracts with PC manufacturers to bundle RealPlayer with WindowsN. Now they don't stand a chance.1 38f31c-1d7a-491e-ac04-657ec5e70789
http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=e
There is absolutely nothing that prevents PC vendors to bundle superior players and configure them as default, thus increasing the value for consumers.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You are a sick, sick puppy. If you want that, you can strip the clothes off any Barbie doll for a lot less money. The added benefit is the Barbie doll is less plastic. Get professional help now before your family stages an intervention.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
This is a null argument. Media Player's not critical. The moment you said this, you lost any points- it's only critical because "consumers expect...", it doesn't keep the machine from running. It doesn't keep you from surfing the Internet (though some content won't show...). It doesn't keep a word processor or spreadsheet from working. IE's a little better of an analogy about needing a given component, but why would you embed into the OS heart such a component as MS has done. Technically, HTML is HTML. If you're using HTML content for your help system, any browser, so long as it is there in the MIME type listings for HTML rendering, should suffice. But you need IE for this stuff, the way MS has done it. Therein lies the rub.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
How about a Lite verson of Windows that will run on older hardware so I can quit throwing away old PC's just because they don't support the minimum requirements to run the latest windows GUI ?
No frills, just an OS that performs on Equipment that is Circa win98.. with some added RAM..
I don't need a media player, animated dog or paperclip, fading windows, or transparency for the employees to type letters, and work on spreadsheets. but it sure bites to keep throwing away perfectly good hardware becuase it runs like crap with Win2k/XP on it.. and you KNOW the requirements won't go down for Longhorn..
Given this study, and I would imagine the vast majority of users would agree, wouldn't it be realistic to say that when people buy Windows, that they expect a media player to come with it ? It has come with it at least since Windows 3.0.
Similarly, would you say the same argument [people only want 'windows' therefore not a mediaplayer] holds true against notepad, Paint, etc. ? If so - why ? If not - why not ?
Although absolutely true, I would also pose that neither Apple nor Real have had any trouble getting users to download and use their media players. For example, for movie trailers QuickTime is predominantly the format of choice - the QuickTime player is also the player of that format of choice. For streaming media, often Real Media is the format of choice. Again, the Real player is often the player of choice (not with geeks, obviously). Both players are available freely. Would you argue that users, if Windows Media Player didn't ship with Windows, would pay for these products instead ? Despite many free and open source players readily available ? Or would you argue that the reason there are so many free / open source players are available is because they could never compete commercially due to a media player being included with Windows ?
Again... the monopoly conviction is recent, making all this possible. So would you say this applies to notepad, paint, etc. as well ?
Let's fantasize about a world in which OS X and Linux are on par with Windows in terms of distribution. Would you believe that the vast majority would prefer to 'buy' a product that is merely an operating system ? Or would you believe that what most people buy is not an operating system per se, but rather an operating system and desktop productivity suite ?
If the latter, could you explain why any commercial company would make the economically unsound decision to offer everything separately ?
Put differently, do you believe that if OS X were to become the predominant 'operating system' out there, reaching and becoming convicted of having a monopoly, that Apple should be forced to remove their media player software, having come with their operating system for years, as well ?
These are honest and serious questions. I know I appear to be siding with Microsoft here, and I have to admit that I am - removing mediaplayer appears ridiculous to me.. to the point of it being a waste of time and resources for all involved. Addressing other methodologies Microsoft employs, such as telling major computer vendors that they can only ship with Windows or no OS at all, seems vastly more important to me.
How many of you anti-Microsoft fucktards want to sue your car manufacturer because they include their own air conditioner? And floor mats? Are you pissed that your apartment came with faucets pre-installed? Does it really make you mad when you buy a TV and the bastards dare to ship their own remote control unit with it? Get a fucking life, and stop whining for whining's sake. Assholes.
Is it your opinion that this is the result of ActiveX being something other than a useful technology for building "rich" web applications?
I'm not entirely sure what the perfect solution to this would have been
Well, everybody clapped right up to today when a few slashbots realized there are a few European consumers that are going to get a crippled version of Windows for the same price thanks to the technological wisdom of a few EU bureaucrats.
Antitrust law is supposed to protect consumers, not screw them. But of course it's Microsoft so whatever action is taken against them is A-OK.
WMP but the .wmv codec itself from inclusion in the default install, or specifying that Microsoft must include DivX, XVid
That's a great idea. Since Real is far more popular than WMP perhaps the US government can threaten RealNetworks with a $6M/day fine unless they stop including their codec with their player and start including every competing codec under the sun. Including WMP.
Your quippy comment about the parent trolling because of the comparison notwithstanding, that would only be fair. After all it was RealNetworks who started whining about WMP, which is interesting given that their POS player is positively evil compared to WMP and every computer I've bought in the past five years has included it pre-installed.
Microsoft has also been known to make things buggy for anyone who's dumb enough to use their software in a way Microsoft does not want. They have promissed this will happen, and we can imagine they will follow up.
Why would any vendor install the version of M$ OS that M$ has promissed won't work? Their customers won't be happy and that makes the EU all the more correct in it's thought and action.
The EU finding of fact was correct. Their fines were simply a way to make Microsoft pay without violating trade agreements. Hopefully, they will use the money to transition themselves out of Microsoft's clutches.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
How can the version without the illegal bundling be optional?!?
the people who DO get XP N will likely go to the MS site and download the media player as soon as they realize it's not there...
Exactly! Now they will be able to choose: Download winamp or real, whatever, OR MS Media player. See, that's the point of making XP N. So that users could be offered products made by the competition.
I wouldn't be surprised if MS privately supported making this whole thing very very public so MS dominated the headlines and made it seem as if they were the only well established OS while the puppies nipped at them. All the while making the governing bodies seem inept.
Of course no one wants the stripped down version because it costs the same as the full-blown version .
This isn't vindication for MS - it is just proof of the stupidity of the EU bureaucrats who did a half-assed job of imposing the punishment on MS. If they weren't so incompetent, they would have mandated that not only must MS make a stripped down version, they also gotta sell it for proportionally less too where "lots" is equal to some value of proportional...
reference: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22283
and I'll say it again; http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144050&cid =12073996/
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Every definition of "monopoly" refers to "exclusive", "sole supplier", "single seller". None of the definitions mean "one of many". Check the meanings of "single" or "sole" or "exclusive" if you still have a problem. Even the business specific definition refers to "sole supplier".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Pardon my ignorance, but:
Most people double-click movie/audio files and expect them to work off the bat. They really don't care about what program is used to open it; even if it is an ugly brute and an unecessary ressource hog. Thus the popularity of WMP explained.
That said, when they now double-click that movie/audio file, and a new window asks them what program they want to use to open it, there will be many blank faces about. And many calls to their local geeks/customer service/retail store [blaming the store for the lack of Media Player surely]. I don't really see the EU comission's decision as a particularily wise one... what would be the sane alternative to "no-WMP": force MS to include alternatives from third-parties? Highly doubtful.
Real is one company I wouldn't mind seeing go down the tubes, after I had to fix more than one computer crippled by their bundled spyware. Even Microsoft doesn;t sink to that level. Fuck Real and fuck the horse they rode in on.
I say break them into skins and shirts. It always worked before.
1. Until the robber barons, monopolies could corner the market, then do anything they wanted, harming the public.
2. M$ isn't quite the same, I agree. But there is a difference between including solitaire that hurts the card game makers, and including a media player that captures an entire broadcast market. Notice, the solitaire game has only one executable file to delete, the media player actually 'breaks' Windows. And in the media game, the pre-installed player makes you the default format.
3. Netscape sucked because they couldn't afford to improve their product after a monopolist started giving it away for free. No one's going to starve to death, but M$ was scared and acted predatory, and so they should be punished. But then, time moves on, and no one could charge for a browser, or a media player, nowadays (I know they have premium players).
4. Unchecked, M$ will eventually lock in movies and music, charge extra for playing them, get in league with Hollywood and the Chinese gov't (to stop piracy), and make even more money. A Media Center PC is the idea, and it costs a lot more money. And no movie-maker wants $10 DVDs to last forever- the Xbox and PS3 are going to charge more for games, and I'm sure Hollywood is coming up with a plan, too. If there were no monopoly laws, M$ would simply crush everything. Who can do business without their OS? Nobody.
5.Yes, you pointed out Linux, etc. Businesses are technically free to adopt Linux and OOO, etc. If Toyota had 95% market share, I'd still sue them if I couldn't uninstall the Toyota radio. And I wouldn't be surprised if the dealers refused to sell a model WITHOUT a Toyota radio, after a court ruled that Toyota had to offer one.
Yet, they do not. Perhaps the rest of your argument does not work since you started out with a false premise. "The allegation is that they're using their monopoly in one industry"
Except for this fact: they have competitors in this "one industry" as well, and are thus not a monopoly (as they are not a "Sole Supplier": look up the word)
"Anyway: no contradiction whatsoever"
There is a contradiction between having a monopoly situation (sole supplier) and there being competitors (aha! other suppliers).
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This is the one time I've been on Microsoft's side on something. Microsoft should be doing more bundling actually:
1.) Microsoft Office
2.) Microsoft Anti-virus Anti-spyware, etc.
3.) Microsoft Firewalls (they do this)
4.) Media Player (they do this)
5.) VNC Software (they do this)
6.) Good Editor (they don't do this)
7.) Compilers (they don't do this)
8.) etc.
Their lack of bundling is what makes it a wonder that anyone uses Windows!
Do you people really waste all that time digging up software?
... is require microsoft to ship with free codecs installed by default. giving the users the choice to save into windows media audio + video as well as ogg vorbis + theora, and possibly others.
and monitor that their implementation keeps compatible with the rest of the world.
that's one way to prevent them to leverage their os monopoly on the media formats.
The actions of the EU were absolutely necessary, but the resulting Windows XP N is a joke in the ass and absolutely not, what the ppl behind the commission wanted, but what the bureaucrats produced.
As we all know, such a big bureaucracy sometimes produces results, like laws which are absolutely a hit into the face of the taxpayers.
We need more ppl like the french in the european union, who like to take activist action to put those people under pressure to do the right thing!
(which would be for example opening up the interface to all open source projects and others without paying money and signing jail like licenses and similarities, or paying less subventions to farmers, put more pressure on gas companies and so on)
Prof. Geoff Pullum had a great insight into what the *real* punishment should have been [1]. To summarize, the Media Edition-less version of Windows XP should have been called...Windows XP, and would be required to be sold at regular price. The *other* XP would be Windows XP+Media Edition, which would be sold at, say, $30 higher, to reflect the actual cost to Microsoft of the software development.
e s/002047.html
This makes such perfect sense that we should not be surprised it was not implemented.
[1] See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archiv
we see any Micrsoft ad campaign promoting "XP N" ?
A couple of media stories and some hype by sychophant 'analysts' and 'journalists'.
No wonder it died.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Requiring the creation of XP N was clearly an ineffective remedy. The problem isn't the presence of Microsoft's media player, it's the absence of pre-installed alternatives.
An effective remedy might be to require Microsoft to permit PC manufacturers to customize Windows XP in whatever way they see fit without suffering any economic disadvantages. That includes making some other media player the default, pre-installing StarOffice, changing the shell, etc.
Right now, the ability of manufacturers to do so seems to be restricted contractually, economically, and technically.
Of course, XP N is at least a start because it demonstrates that it can be done.
IMO products like RealPlayer are usually annoying, system destroying pieces of software (adware... weeeee). If an effect of bundling WMP with WinXP is reducing Real's market share, the good lord be praised.
"...if people respected copyright more, like you guys do with the GPL so religiously, [the DMCA] wouldn't be necessary."
I don't think anyone here at /. is saying they shouldn't be allowed to bundle libraries. Libraries are good.
I think even uninstalling is a red herring. What pisses many people off about IE is that it seems utterly unavoidable in common use. Not only because it's an application that the system depends upon, but because it's so visible to the users.
When you run on OS X, Apple has WebCore and WebKit. They're part of the OS. Remove them and watch other apps break like dry twigs. But you can drag Safari to the trash just fine, and nothing will break. While this may be only a token gesture when 90% of your application is just a shell for the libraries, it's an important one. It's this feel that, carefully cultivated, helped MS utterly destroy Netscape back during the browser war.
The Windows Media Player is in a similar situation. The tools that other apps depend upon should be tied to quietly lurking libraries, not Microsoft applications. Imagine if DirectX was tied to a specific application, like a Microsoft 3d Modelling Program. Even dependant app becomes a form of indirect reinforcement and even advertising for the MS core apps.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
you know, i dont get all this anti-wal-mart sentiment. wal-mart is providing acceptable products at an acceptable price.
if nobody cares about the quality of product OR quality of experience at a smaller merchandiser, why does that small business have an instrinsic right to survive ? it doesn't. it must adapt, just like other businesses.
personally, i dont have any problem with claims that wal-mart is exploiting child labor in south-east asian nations. Obivously these kids "need" to work for whatever reason (or they wouldn't be working currently)... what do you suppose a 12 year old girl in thailand is going to do for money if the wal-mart factory closes ? Is that better for children, thailand, or the world ?
For many people, cost of goods is the primary differentiator in what they buy. Specialty shops or places selling a value-added-experience will have to adjust to that reality.
BMW, for instance, does not compete on cost. Neither does apple.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
It doesn't matter what you sell, THE most important feature is the price. Consumers DO buy decent items, but no matter how much you charge for a pair of pants, it's just meant to cover your ass.
Let's look at pants. 50 years ago, most people wore slacks most of the time, and paid a lot for each pair, and then payed specialists just to dryclean them. Now I go to work in jeans, and pay virtually nothing to get them washed in my own washer/dryer. The jeans are the better product, not worse. Price doesn't mean something better, and Walmart isn't evil. The jeans last longer, I can do more in them, and I feel better wearing them than the slacks. My Adidas are (adjusting for inflation) like 10 times cheaper than dress shoes from 1950's and like 10 times better for my knees.
You may not realize it, but you're calling for a return to elitism, not quality. If you want better quality, no one has put LL Bean out of business, so go ahead. But when pants are $10 to replace 'better quality' doesn't mean anything. 'Quality' clothes are for weddings and management.
And I sincerely believe that quality and creativity are usually opposite attributes- a craftsman needs repetition to get really high quality, and Edison needed thousands of low-quality failures to CREATE a new invention, the light bulb. After Edison's initial burst, it took years to get a 'quality' light bulb. Look at japanese carpentry, high quality, high price, lowest creativity, hasn't change in years. It's only in software, people think quality and creativity go hand in hand, but remember that Apple hardware and software is about craftsmanship, and studying usage, not about pure invention. They're no more creative than M$, just slicker.
Walmart has actually pioneered technology use in retailing, and M$ has done a lot of good research. So lay off. You're not smart because you don't shop at Walmart.
Maybe they're upset about the adult content of XP Pro N.
Windows comes w/ Windows Media Player, big deal. You don't have to use it.
Windows also comes with IE, which IS the problem, since you are required to have it installed in order for your operating system to even work properly, and to do things like update windows, etc. *try un-installing IE and see what happens...*, but since IE is FLAWED w/ NUMEROUS exploit vulnerabilities, and is pretty much required to run the os properly, this should be the concern of the EU, not WMP (wimp).
The fact that it comes w/ a browser is a given, but the fact that you can't uninstall that browser or choose a different browser during the installation process, should be noted.
Even in most linux distro lamor-install menus, they let you choose from a variety of browsers to use.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
makes sense.
Bundling software with the OS and assigning those programs as default is not forcing a monopoly. You cannot blame the apathy of the consumer on the Vendor.
I agree somewhat with disliking the inability to uninstall certain pieces of software, but thats not quite going to cut it as far as defining Microsoft as a Monopoly. It doesn't prevent users from using OTHER software does it? I mean, if Windows refused to allow you to install Winamp or iTunes or an Office alternative - THEN you have a monopoly.
Just because a company has a commanding share of the market doesn't make make it a Monopoly. People CHOOSE Windows, they aren't forced to buy it. Your average user Reads email, makes some text and spreadsheet docs, and surfs the Internet. I think all the OS's do that.What's this media lock in you speak of? Sorry Windows didn't default to your favorite Open Source alternative, but thats not their job. There are free alternatives to Windows Media Player, and alot are better. It's just that, well, the consumer doesn't give a shit. If it does what they need it to well enough, they will accept that.
I guess it's also Microsoft's fault that Apple's OS's heven't played as many games as Windows has. Maybe Microsoft has a Monopoly on the PC gaming market too!Read an economics book, when the demand consistently ignores alternatives, the alternatives are what are what need improvement. This, "give us a chance" rhetoric is crap. If the alternative products were better, the consumer would buy it. iPods and Playstations are just two examples of this.
And just because your prefered product doesn't have the Lion's share of the market, doesn't make the leader a monopoly.I shall now get modded into the ground.
Then Microsoft could look at companies like Real and Apple and say "OK, you want to replace us - fine. Here's our API, and here's how your product can request WMP un-install itself. So long as you implement COM objects that implement these interfaces and register them with the system, and so long as your implementations work, you can completely replace WMP. Ball's in your court."
Then if the other companies get it wrong - Microsoft can say "Sorry Mr. J. Random Consumer, but the product you chose in favor of our product isn't as good - perhaps you should try our product, as it is better?"
And if the other companies get it right - well then, we, the consumers, have choice.
www.eFax.com are spammers
What would happen if they offered a stripped down version of windows. I.E. No addons that are available by third parties.
Hmm where did my following things go....
ICONS.
Calculator
Note Pad
Word Pad
Paint
defrag
Remote Desktop Connection
Sound Recorder
Media Player
IE
Explorer (windows shell)
Picture Viewer.
Telnet
FTP
Ping
Tracert
I am sure there are a few more things that could be unbundled. The question then becomes what / how do they sell it?
If I purchased a computer from dell, they would have to put all those 'applications' on the computer. Thats no problem, but what If I wanted to build my own computer?
I buy XP stripped down. Get it installed (quickly).. And to get on the internet. Ooops, no web browser, no ftp client. Hmm now how to get my items. Maybe I will pull some files of my networked computer. Ooh I don't have any way to view files b/c explorer was not included. Looks like I will have to go down to the store & purchase a web browser, and all other kinds of tools. Individually. at about $5/ea that is an additional $75 to spend just to get windows where it is now.
I say bundle more things, I don't want to have to buy office, visual studio, etc. I want it all bundled together in one nice package.
Its kind of like dos back in the good ol' modem days. I could not get online to a bbs to download anything b/c I did not have a copy of procomm. I had to get a copy on 5 1/4 floppies from a friend so I could go get some other utilities.. I really hated that.
Look at linux, it is bundled with so much stuff, its crazy, and MS is getting the shaft for putting a media player in there. If I recall media player has been included since windows 95 (movie player / AVI)
Isn't that like Canada or something?
To answer, no, we don't care.
Since when do Corporations represent the public and or the public best interests at large?
but that is actually THE reason why the EU actions are there!
Have Slashdot's brains been slashed by Microsoft lately, or what?
Well, it seems as if Europeans, after rejecting the constitution that EU elitists KNEW would be adopted by huge margins, they now seem to be rejecting the impaired "XP Lite" that the EU elitists KNEW would be wildly in demand. Anyone else think that, just maybe, the EU leadership isn't really in touch with their constituents?
Less functional and stable? Where have you been the last 4 years? Windows media player uses IE core, and therefor it it unstable, an extra security whole, and not worth the risk of using.
You can get a version of windows without WMP, and it's gaining popularity even among droids as dumb as you! The EU demanded far less than they should have. They should have asked for windows without IE, and pointed to Nlite as their source. nliteos.com
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
No, I don't think I'm willing to let myself get gouged left and right and potentially put myself in danger of food poisoning for someone else's 'feel good' rendition of what healthy competition ought to be. Not when I can do better for less at Walmart. Instead, they need to get off their lazy butts and learn how to compete instead of always crying foul because nobody wants to buy their overpriced, rancid shit. If you're not willing to compete, then you can go out of business for all I care. Just like I'm not willing to keep an employee if he/she's not willing to put in the effort that his job requires. Besides, perhaps in the next 30 years, Walmart might get displaced by another megastore for all we know, and we could make the argument that killing Walmart would hinder competition and how Foo-Mart is all evil and that. This is how the market economy works. Without the Walmart 25 miles away for competition, we'd have a bad monopoly here right now.
Alas, if there's anything bad about the Walmart expirience I can think of at the top of my head, it's that you'll get to see some of the scariest, and goofiest looking rejects imaginable, but then again, I don't go there to pick up women, neither. ;-)
Consider: What are the real alternatives to using the Windows Media Player for the average Joe? From any practical standpoint, there aren't many. On one hand, you've got RealPlayer... with all it's nagging for upgrading to the full-blown registered version, and all the garbage it tends to load along with itself. Not really much of WMP replacement, all things considered. What of QuickTime? Sure, it'll play mp3's and a few other formats... but I find that WMP can handle a much larger scope of codecs than QT. And though QT won't nag you nearly as badly as Real will, it still bugs you about registering for the Pro version.
And what of the OSS alternatives? Personally, I love VLC and MPC... but configuring VLC is a nightmare compared to WMP (or most any commercial media player that I've ever seen), and MPC development is pretty stale. Sure, there are other alternatives not mentioned here... but the fact is: WMP comes with Windows for free, and manages to do an acceptable job most of the time. Why on earth would the average Joe want to replace it? Remember: The average Joe could care less how evil Microsoft is... he just wants a functional computer.
Now let's consider the browser market: You've got IE, FF/mozilla, and Opera. Sure, FF is free, and rapidly becoming a very robust browser, and Opera is a well crafted and extremely speedy browser (and more)... but you cannot get past the large number of sites that are not fully compatible with browsers other than IE. Once again: does the average Joe really care about the semantics of supporting alternative browsers? Or, is he more concerned with just being able to surf the web? Unfortunately, I think you'll find that most users would rather face security risks than the occasional site not formatting or being viewable with non-Microsoft browsers.
The end result, to me, is un-surprising. By far, most people that really wanted to get rid of IE or WMP had already done so by switching to an alternative OS.
The ruling by the EU was more than anything a way for some pissy European lawmakers and officials to drive home a point to Microsoft: Microsoft may be huge and rich beyond words, but they are not all-powerful. The practical results of this ruling are about nill. Who really expected more, at this point??? The real-world is rarely such an ideal place.
/dev/random
It was documented in the MS antitrust trial that MS had actively taken measures to prevent QT from working properly on Windows.
Many of the opinions posted here remind me somewhat of the prevailing opinions of the general population in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Ayn gives an account of what can happen when people start talking about their "right to compete" and how it is "unfair" for some companies to provide a product that puts them out of business.
I say let Microsoft sell whatever teh fsck they want--if you don't like it, don't buy it, don't pirate it, don't use it. Not letting them sell a product the way they want to in the name of "competition" is BS. The decision by the EU is not going to result in better products for the people--no way, no how.
Only politicians could come up with a scheme this fucked up. The solution is pretty damn obvious:
Ban the sale of the "full" version of windows in the EU.
Then, if customers want a media player, they'll have to install one. Sure, they might download it from MS, but they might also download it from somewhere else, giving the competition a look in, which was the whole point of this exercise.
Was that so hard?
If they really tore Media Player out, as in all of it, media fails to work in los of things. The actual Media Player program is just a front end for Windows' media layer. So programs can place calls to it to play media, without having to implement their own codecs and playback mechanism. It's very similar to how QuickTime works in OS-X, the player is just a front end to the media system that is a part of the whole OS.
So if Media Player is reall gone you'll find games that will not show their video or crash, any document with embedded video will fail, etc. Installing QuickTime or Real won't fix it, either. For Windows they are not full media layer replacements, just their own media players. So you'd be able to play their stuff, but not any of the normal formats.
I'm not sure why people keep saying it is. IE is an application like any other application. It runs in the user's context. It doesn't have any process running in the kernel. IE exploits are only as harmful as any other process running under the logged in user. This is why I run my login account as limited user, not administrator, so that and IE exploit (or firefox, whatever), doesn't hose my system.
That said, IE does allow itself to be instantiated within other processes, which is where the problem emerges when trying to uninstall. Many apps, not limited to those bundled with Windows, use this feature to display web content within their application. IE, in essence, placed itself as a codec of sorts. Just like you can't play DiVX without some sort of DiVX codec installed, some web enabled apps cannot function without IE installed. It may be an underhanded way of keeping a foothold on the Windows platform, but it add some value to a developer.
People use what comes bundled because there's no noticeable difference in quality. Even if the current competitors drop out, if Microsoft doesn't make a good media player a new competitor will come along and make a better one, which people will be able to buy and install. So long as the situation remains that if someone wants to make and sell a new media player and someone else wants to make and install it on Windows they can do so, Microsoft won't accomplish anything by bundling a bad one.
Microsoft has been bundling the media player for so long that users now don't want to go without it.
They should've been prevented from bundling years ago. Now it's too late...
But it's good to keep the options open. Maybe Apple can make something of this.
The Wikipedia one is of interest: "Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide". While it is obvious to anyone that a sole supplier lacks competitors, the Wikipedia definition brings it right out there. The Wikipedia definition is a typical definition for the word "monopoly" My assertion that "is a monopoly" contradicts "has competitors" is entirely consistent with the vast majority of definitions of the word "monopoly", including the relevant large dictionaries and collegiate sources.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Apparently they see little reason to deploy Longhorn as well. Otherwise it would be on my new Dell by now, right???
*ducks*
winwoes doesn't come with jack shit. Take a look at Fedora Core. That's almost 7 gigs of software. SEVEN GIGS!
When MS was entered into the anti-trust suit, this was not the case. We're all talking about that legacy.
However, I might note that if you remove IE, many legacy apps do break, because they try and launch IE explicitly (and erroneously, but that's not the point).
Obviously, they can do it now. XP N is proof that it is no longer that way. But the impression is still there. Honestly, I have no idea why the EU ordered things they way they did. To me the ruling didn't seem to help much of anything, and seems very dated.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
It seems like the whole idea was to protect comsumer choice (by avoiding monopolies). Yet the solution imposed does anything but!
If anything they should have encouraged comsumer choice by bundling a CD with Windows that offers alternative software, like RealPlayer an so on along with WMP, and encouraged comsumers to explore their options.
I mean shit, you could even call it a 'bonus' or 'special' edition, imagine how well that would do!
And the public could give a rat's ass about WMP shipping with windows, but the public also watches NACAR and shops at Wal*Mart. They aren't about fair trade and good taste, they have a very simplistic view of the world.
I don't feel the need to expand on any of these points, if you don't understand then I feel sorry for you.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
That MS's competitors seem to think that they should be able to make an inferior, or at best equal product that costs money and sell it, and if they don't it's MS's anti-competitivness that's stopping them.
Personally I think it's fine, I think the goal should be to make a BETTER product, so you want to buy it. I've purchased a number of products to which MS has free included version, because the 3rd party solutions are better, and I use others that are free alternatives. For exmaple:
1) Diskeeper. It's a disk defragmentation program. Actually the included Windows version is based on it, but is very strippend down and much slower. The more optimized, faster algorithms combined with background operation made it worth the money to me.
2) UltraEdit. Notepad does edit text documents, but it pretty basic. I found it worth the money to get UNIX break support, syntax highlighting, regex searching, macros, etc, etc.
3) Mozilla. IE has problems with support of features I want, such as transparant PNGs, so I use Mozilla instead, despite it's slightly inferior rendering engine.
4) Winamp. WMP is fine for video, but I dislike it for audio. Winamp is just what I want. It even has an adapter to use my professional DirectX plugins.
5) Kerio Personal Firewall. Windows Firewall is nice and all, but too simplistic for my tastes. I need to make more complex rules for apps, and I like how it monitors if an app is changed. The campus wher eI work actually shelled out for a site license of this.
6) Nero. Windows can burn CDs allegedly, but I wonldn't know. I love Nero's interface so that's all I ever use.
I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of right now. The point is, all of these are better than the MS alternatives. However I find both Real and QuickTime to be highly inferior to Media Player. So bad, in fact, I dislike installing them, and get QuickTime Alternative and Real Alternative instead.
It seems to me, rather than whining about MS including an acceptable solution, they should be working to make a great solution so that you'll ignore what MS has and get their's anyhow. I understand for many people, iTunes is such a solution. MS has some included online media purchasing system, but I've heard nothing of it. Seems if people purchase their music that way, iTunes is how they do it, despite it not being bundled.
Can the EU demand that Windows XP (Standard) is not sold or distributed on new PC's? This would make the plans seem much more logical and would make them easier to enforce, that would cause real (although minor) damage to Microsoft. OR, the EU can demand that if Windows Media Player is included by default, RealPlayer, Quicktime, etc. must also be included for greater user choice & convenience. Obviously the latter could not be done by Microsoft but there is nothing stopping the OEM's doing this.
I never spell in funetiks
Trying to bundle their own media program with their operating system. Deplorable behaviour.
Oh, wait. Forgot.
Direct away from face when opening.
I'm sure this will get marked troll (I'm sure it will be just from that sentence) regardless, I feel it must be said. WTF is the big deal about bundling? This is the only instance, and the only industry, that a corporation gets nailed for "bundling". It's called a "solution". When's the last time someone went after IBM for monopolistic practices because they provide entire corporations "solutions"?
Let's put this into perspective:
This is equivalent to Rockford-Fosgate suing toyota because toyota includes a stereo in every car they sell. It's unfair practices to the aftermarket stereo companies!!! Except, it's not even that, you know why? Because Rockford-Fosgate actually provides a better standard than toyota does. If all the developers bitching and moaning about MS bundling software spent a little more time developing, perhaps they could create a product that was so superior to what microsoft was offering, they could put a price on it and get it widely adopted. Fact of the matter is, you (the people whining) are just pissed that microsoft is doing such a good job at it. All I hear is how sh1tty M$ code is, and how buggy, etc. etc. I promise if it was THAT BAD, people would find another solution.
The EU has drawn strict lines in what needs to be open in terms of operating systems and their APIs. It may be way too late to do anything about Windows XP now, but when Longhorn is out, the EU can easily get injunctions on a very short notice when Microsoft fails to deliver API specifications and unbundle content providing from the core of an operating system.
In the long run this is going to be a massive problem for Microsoft.
Laws against bundling a monopoly product with other products just doesn't work when the bundled product is intangible (software), and can be obtained for free. If you're bundling a good movie with a shitty one, fine, that could be abuse of a monopoly, because the good movie nor the shitty one can be obtained for free. But Media Player is already something that can be obtained for free, so forcing them to "sell" the two separately is nonsensical.
There is a counterargument to this, though, and that is that Microsoft hasn't in fact debundled the two products. Sure, one can download Media player for free from Microsoft's website, but unless one already has Windows, it doesn't matter, because (the Windows version of) Media Player will only run on Windows (maybe it runs on Wine, but almost certainly not very well without the Windows dlls).
Maybe a better solution, if you really think Microsoft is abusing its monopoly by tying (and I'm skeptical of this), would be to force Microsoft to charge for the Windows version of Media Player. But what would be a proper price? Isn't the Macintosh version of Media Player also free? What does Microsoft get out of that deal?
I could see making Microsoft remove windows media player if windows precluded people from installing other media players, but since you can download and install others like real, quicktime, etc, then there is no real monopoly in this particular case. Thats the plain and simple fact.
...we'll be living through all those terrible science fiction movies of the 70s. Competition = good, monopoly = bad. When Walmart dominates what is to keep their prices down? Their conscience? Laughable. They don't have one. People will be forced to steal, or worse, riot. Then the government will be pressured into making changes that will restrict our rights even more. We'll be living in even more of a police state. Finally, it will culminate in civil war. Hmm..this gives me a good idea for a sci fi movie.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
I don't understand why Microsoft is still allowed to sell the WMP-bundled Windows version.
Abusing your monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in other areas is illegal, right? If a company that sells bread has all the market share, they should not be allowed to include a pack of butter with each loaf of bread at no extra price. That would allow them to put other butter makers out of business without needing to compete on product quality. Afterwards they could jack up the price again, of course.
But EU just seems to say "bad Microsoft, as punishment for breaking the law you have to make sure customers can get your bread *without* butter if they want to". Which is pointless since they are allowed to charge the same for both versions.
The only thing that would make sense would be to allow Microsoft to sell *only* the non-bundled version. But that's probably too late now anyway, since Microsoft already got their free media player market share.
Where they *really* should have made them charge less is on the server side.
Bundling a windows media streamer with their servers is a direct move to undercut Real and anybody else that sells a server product and gives away the client.
MS's plan for media domination is, thus, 2-pronged. Bundle the free client with the Windows desktop, so it's 'guaranteed' to be there, and then include the streamer with the server OS, so the choice is a no brainer.
Somebody wanting, say, to deploy Real streams from a Linux box, which adds cost to the 'free' Linux OS may end up spending about the same as the Windows Media deployment, but still would have to deal with the 'missing client' problem. And anybody wanting to deploy Real streams from a Windows server, has to 'pay' for the free WMA server *plus* the Real server.
That, my friends, is illegal bundling squared.
What the EU should have done is require a cheaper server without WMA streams.
Or they could've tried opening up the WMA format so anyone could develop products based on the MS Monopoly-dictated 'standard' audio format.
As it is, they essentially did nothing.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
so let me get this straight.
there are lots of really good jobs in (wherever), but they're all taken or something, and the only thing remaining is factory work at "exploitative" american companies.
My claim is that life is so rotten that forcing an 8 year old to work at walmart is better than forcing an 8 year old prostitute.
Walmart doesn't "force" people to have jobs in other markets. Walmarts pay doesn't drive down pay in other places. Dont you suppose if there were a better way of working / standard of living, thats what people would do ?
If i'm going to artifically pay too much for something, i'll just give the money to people in the US. Then the working children in (wherever) will go back to being child prostitutes, sold as sex slaves by their parents, or any of the other things that go on in countries in abject poverty and without enough basic necessities to worry much about western morality. But hey, i wont be patronizing wal-mart, right ?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
...the public at large would not seem to agree and is not actually demanding any such stripped down version.
That is true. The only people demanding this were either not Windows users, or large corporations competing with Microsoft. If the public truly did not want Windows Media Player, they would have downloaded/bought something else instead. Duh.
Too many companies are using Microsoft's monopoly as a crutch. Stop marketing to the OEMs! Every idiot already knows they're Microsoft's bitches. Start marketing to the music listening public instead! You're not going to be guaranteed success, but basing your entire marketing plan on scoring an exclusive account with a major OEM *WILL* guaranteed your failure.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
and in other news, PC users see little reason to buy it. And that, as they say, is that.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Msft's business practises are deplorable. The governments and/or courts ought to do something.
But why is it, that everything the goverments and/or the courts do is so completely wrong and retarded?
Instead of a ten year DOJ bogo trial, why not have the Feds tell msft: "look msft, knock of the BS, or we're going to use another vendor. In fact, maybe we'll switch everything to F/OSS." Can you even imagine how much more effective and efficient that would be?
Why not change the patent system to stop all the msft bogo filing?
Why not cite msft for being a vexatious litigant, since msft is sponsering scox's bogo lawsuits?
Why not convict a msft executive, like bill or steve, for msft's obviously illegal practices? Let bill cool his heels for about six months. It would change everything.
Why not cite msft for lanham violations for publishing phoney TCO studies?
It would be easy to bring msft under control. But in EU and the USA; it's like we have the three stooges running the system.
I'd wager that Pro N outsells Home N, however.
Of course no one wants this, what the EU should have done was mandate that ALL versions of Windows come with WMP as an *OPTION* (during setup, and in Add/Remove programs). Then it would be up to the OEMs (and/or users) to CHOOSE to install WMP or not - and they wouldn't have to fret over it being a completely different version of windows to support. Sure, most likely they would choose to install WMP, but it is the choice that is important!
And if it were an Add/Removable program, even if was not installed by default, apps installed later that needed WMP could ask the user if they wanted to install WMP or not. (MS did that before in the 9x days with other optional components)
The original order by the EU was not specific as to how to implement this entire thing. Yanking out all related DLLs and offering it as a separate Windows version was Microsoft's idea. Making WMP add/removable (with the user-default of not installed) would have satisfied the EU order just fine. But Microsoft, once again, just had to be jerks about the entire thing so they could get their way.
Sorry, but 95%+ of all users actually LIKE their OS to have the integrated ability. (That's 100% of Mac users if you're interested)
The first thing my father said after installing XP on his system was, "Wow! I can burn a CD right from windows?!"
People like not having to go out and find or buy an application if it can be bundled with the OS.
The buggy companies all wrung their hands when the automobile was introduces. Evolve or become extinct. If you can't compete, too bad.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
I have a K6-2 350 running Win2k with a Rage128 video card, and it uses 100% cpu for a live video feed.
The same video, but with WMP uses about 15% cpu and the video is smoother, though the audio quality is noticably worse.
I like Real player better than WMP, but in this case, WMP uses fewer recources. I haven't checked the data rates between the different feeds, so that could be the issue.
Strange thing is that Real player on Debian Linux with a PII 450 only uses 15% also, so this might be a driver issue.
On another note, if Real wanted their player to be more widespread, they would make it easier to redistribute. Why doesn't every distro play Real's formats on default install?
And the EU should be making MS distribute Real and Quicktime. The each player should be associated with their native formats and the others should be randomly associated with one of the others.
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
And so ends round two in the battle to delimit the monopolist power which microsoft wields. Twice we have seen grand efforts by governments, the goverments of the most powerful economies in the world, fail utterably, resulting in little net gain for anyone-neither for the competitors of microsoft, which is basically anyone producing software which runs on or interacts with Windows, or for the consumers of said technology.
ok. The results are not yet in from untertakings of the EU-perhaps some good can still come out of their attempts. So perhaps I am jumping the gun-but I don't see any good coming of the measures taken by the EU.
The article referenced by this thread simply points out what anyone reasonable person could have expected. The decisions made by the EU are utterly and aboslutely impotent against the power of self-interest which is at work in the kind of monopoly which Microsoft is. We lack the technical, legal and conceptual tools, collectively, to trully deal adequately with such phenomen-which isn't so surprising considering that the kind of power which Microsoft yields is unique in history.
In America when one talks about monopolies one is talking about corporations which totally dominate a market. In Europe talk about monopolies is talk about the idea of state monopolies-most people in Europe think immediately of the Post, the Telecom etc. ie. state run monopolies. The differing social and political policies and their respective histories, in both America and Europe, are not sufficient to explain the divergence in meaning of the word monoploly as used in Europe and America. I have never studied law but it is obvious to me that our respective legal traditions are totally inequipped to adequately deal with such. I suspect this inability is due to the definitions (understandings-or lack thereof) of the terms(the phenomena to which the terms refer).
Microsoft was not and never will be in a position to wield monopoly power without the aiding and abetting of the entire consumer PC industry which organically(parasitically) has grown up around it. Microsoft, *alone*, was never, is not, and never shall be a monopoly-yet our legal institutions must handle Microsoft in and of itself. It has been clear to me for the last 15 years that the 'monopoly' of Microsoft Windows was also equally due to Microsoft and Intel. But, as this article points out, the 'monopoly' doesn't end with Microsoft and x86 chip manufacturers-the 'monopoly' also encompasses all of the major computer manufacturers, with the exception perhpas of Apple and Sun(if one can call them major).
It is insane to think that Dell would force it's customers in Europe to use a neutered Windows. The same hold for any major computer manufacturer- there never was any kind of consumer demand for neutered Windows and never will be. And how could people see Windows XP N as *not* being neutered, after all 'multimedia' is the sexy buzzword of all pc technology for the past X years- a pc not capable of multimedia playback is rightfully seen as neutered.
Now of course the goal of those actions taken by the EU was not for consumers to be forced to use neutered PC's. The goal was to level the playing field for competitors to actually have a chance to comepte fairly against the inevitable pre-installed Microsoft Media Player installation base. (this pre-installed base reminds me of 'encumbancy' in politics). But this 'fair playing field' is in and of itself almost impossible to achieve-because 90% of all pc's sold come with Windows XP and it usually costs more to buy a pc sans Windows than one with Windows, and of course this is the active part which the manufacturers/vendors play in the 'monopoly'. I don't have any concrete numbers in my head but I can't imagine more than 5% of Microsoft licenses being sold directly to consumers-the customers get their license with their pre-installed OS on their new PC's.
I certainly don't have a complete simple solution which would adre
Dear European Commission: Either force Microsoft to unbundle the Media Player from all Microsoft products sold in the US - or don't! But this is bullsh*t.
The forced released Windows without Media Player, while still allowing consumer a choice which version to buy is utterly pointless and useless. Because in effect there is no choice to be made. Dealers won't carry XP N because there is no demand for it. There is no demand for it because dealers don't carry XP N. So there is no choice.
The desired effect was to allow competition regarding media formats and players (Real, QuickTime, Windows, DivX/MPEG-4 etc).
This won't happen if 99.9% of all users still acquire the regular XP version either
-because they don't know about XP N
-or the PC manufacturers don't bundle XP N with their PCs.
-or people think they somehow buy an "inferior" product.
What a waste of time, money and resources. The EC's ruling won't have the desired effect.
--- Eat my sig.
C'mon, force microsoft to offer a version without mediaplayer, while microsoft can still decide that this version costs about the same and thus there is no reason for PC vendors to prefer N over the normal version.
A pointless and insane exercise.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Find any definition that says anything like "it is a monopoly if the business model of the competitors includes people working them for free".
"Take away the open source developers and it's dead in the water"
Again, the reliance on open source does not make the competitors any less real, and it does not mean that the definition of "monopoly" is met.
"It's a bit like claiming that my electricy company isn't a monopoly because...."
Very in-apt analogy. Besides, hardly anyone does that, leaving the electric co's 100% share intact, even if it the resulting of rounding from 99.94%. Nothing like the huge numbers of non-Windows OS users on the PC platform. There are so many ways your analogy has nothing to do with anything. I bet you'd have a huge percentage "installing solar panels" on their roof if it they could do it for free (like *nux/*nix users can have their OS for free instead of paying for Windows). Instead, it costs MORE to do this.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The actual Media Player program is just a front end for Windows' media layer. So programs can place calls to it to play media, without having to implement their own codecs and playback mechanism.
.exe is just a thin shell with not much more substance than a desktop icon.
THAT is what the whole beef is about! THAT is the reason the American DOJ had the brouhaha over IE "bundling" as well!
The problem really has NOTHING AT ALL to do with "including" WMP or IE with Windows--MS should be allowed to do so. "Bundling" is a really misleading term when you think about it because what MS has done is not "bundled"--it has engineered what were once distinct applets or applications into libraries and integrated/hooked/merged the "meat" of these applications into the OS. Thus, when you open an IE browser window or the WMP applicaiton the
This "melding" into the OS, or transforming "applications" into "OS components" is how MS gets things over the "Chinese Wall" they supposedly keep between applications groups and the OS development groups. THAT is what damages competitors.
RealPlayer and FireFox have to load up their own libraries and so a lot more under-the-hood work to launch because the REAL parts of their applications are not "system libraries". Ether they have to to pre-loading tricks at startup, which makes the system startup time longer, or the user has to wait for startup longer.
Furthermore, users cannot DISABLE the loading of IE or WMP components as they are "system components". Other apps depend on IE's rendering engine, you need it for Windows Update, and WMP libraries are used by all sorts of games, etc. to play video. You cannot even disable pre-loading of them on normal startup to my knowledge.
The whole end result is that MS's own bundled "applications" (really just thin shells) seem to work just that much smoother than the competitor, and for all practical purposed are not removable without altering functionality. Thus you have big huge monolithic bloated OS. And now MS is paying the price because they made strategic decisions to tie in all these features for convenience and market domination all at the expense of efficiency, stability and security.
The MS way of things is the antithesis of the UNIX/Linux way of things. I do not like that a certain amount of web browser and media player and GUI CRAP just HAS to be installed on domain controllers, file/print servers etc etc. With a UNIX like OS components are much more discrete--I can more easily configure the install to include just exactly what I need/want and no more or less. With Windows that is absolutely impossible right now.
The result of MS "bundling" is more complex and far reaching than RealPlayer and Netscape whining about having to push their products harder than MS to get people to use them. After years of designing around this philosophy MS has spread sickness throughout the global computer ecosystem.
In larger communities, Walmart does like to try and put up stores really close to one another. Everytime I go downstate via Highway M-15 south of Bay City, I'd drive by a few anti-walmart signs stating, "Hey Walmart! We already have a store a few miles away from here. We don't need another one." Another sign will say, "Made in China. A great American Story by Sam Walton." and stuff like that. At first, I dismissed it as people being paranoid. However, if there's one thing that Walmart is good for, it's that if the city won't allow Walmart to build within the city, then they'll simply plant themselves in the township just outside the city limits and then drain away the city's local economy like a leech or a vampire as though to make them sorry for not letting them in. So, depending on where you're from, Walmart is either a blessing or an abominition. It's good for me, but ymmv.
nt
How interesting. Just like UPN and Enterprise, only this time the Enterprise is rejecting XPN. Beam me up, Scotty!
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Microsoft started bundling a media player with windows(windows 3.0) before Real even existed. Now microsoft is expected to unbundle their media player after 14 years of it being bundled? You slashbotter simply amaze me.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
WMP-free Windows? Who on earth will buy it?
It certainly won't make any harder for 'mom & pop' users to catch spyware.
Unless they start offering Windows without IE, I'm not interested.
Rediculous is ridiculous!
That all an OS should be is the kernel. That's not how the rest of us want it, and that's not how other commercial OSes (OS-X, Solaris, etc) do it. We want a well defined, enriched system. I want a consistent media layer provided by my OS, just like a want a GDI, file manager, browser, etc. I want those present so that people aren't constantly having to reinvent the wheel, or require me to go download a ton of 3rd party shit to make their stuff work.
If someone wants to make competition software, great, I'm all for that. As I noted in another post I use plenty of software to which there is an included MS alternative. I do not want a stripped OS, however.
Now if you like that fine, use Linux, it's a valid philsophy, but it's not what most users want, and it doesn't lead to a better user experience. One of the most frustrating things about Linux for newbies is the inconsistency. You can go and install Fedora and have it work fine, then try Slackware and find yourself totally unable to function because things aren't how you are used to them being. Users want ease and consistency, and to have that you have to have an OS that is more than just a kernel.
Also, if you are pissed about, Apple is who you should really be up on, they are the ones that really started it. DOS was very basic, included disk, mouse and memory services, nothing else. Even those often were replaced or augmented with 3rd party solutions. Anything you wanted you had to roll yourself, or include a 3rd party solution that did it. The Mac changed all that. Lots of integrated functionality that grew with each version. Hell, while MS was still loading Windows as a shell on top of DOS, one you often had to exit to run some apps, MacOS had a single uniform GUI for all apps, one you couldn't leave.
That's where it all started, Apple showed users a new way of doing thigns, and the users liked it. Today they continue this to an extent MS never has. They don't sell an OS, they sell an entire solution, hardware and all. It's all designed and approved by Apple. It's one of the things many of their users really like. No problems with incompatible hardware or anything, no question who you go to for support. Apple dictates the entire solution from the ground up.
It's not for everyone, but it's not an invalid business practise.
Isn't it obvious? From what I've heard, the cut-down version costs the same as the full edition. So, you're Dell...do you put out the copy that doesn't have Windows Media Player and surely face thousands of "I can't play videos!" complaints from the clueless masses...or do you just stick with what you've been using and supporting for the last few years? Maybe if there was a financial advantage there you would, but that isn't the case. There's absolutely no incentive to change, other than a moral one - and like *that* matters in modern business.
The great thing about an operating system is that it's just software, and can be bundled with a limitless amount of other software. And there's a ton of types of software that go great with an OS. Games, media players, security programs, networking protocols, video editors, word processors, email clients, web browsers, etc, etc, etc all help make the system feel more complete straight out of the box. If, upon installing Windows, you discovered that all it provided was a file system and the other basics(hardware management, I/O, etc), you'd feel kinda cheated, wouldn't you?
Come on, in a world where George Bush can be elected President not once but twice, do you really expect anything sane to come from the courts?
In a world where people are willing to use an operating system that's been deliberately designed for insecurity, do you really expect people to care if 9/11 became anything but a pretext for the New World Order?
Why, this is Wonderland, nor am I out of it.
When you download the linux kernel, you get a kernel. When you download a distro you get the OS.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. You make a good point about bundled apps but you destroy your credibility with that first sentence.
> Not letting them sell a product the way they want to in the name of "competition" is BS.
That is correct. As Ayn Rand has explained, the antitrust laws are contradictory, and ineffective, and have mostly been used to punish success. I disagree with them, even when used against a desrving target like Microsoft.
Instead, the law should be going after Microsoft for their real crimes. These generally involve extortion, sabotage, and fraud, and there are many examples:
1. Extortion:
Bill Gates threatens to harm Apple, if Apple does not stop doing business with Netscape:
> Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...."
2. Sabotage:
Microsoft strategy to destroy shared standards, in order to block competition from Linux:
> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
A Microsoft marketing presentation describes how they will sabotage Java:
> The "strategic objective" is to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."
3. Fraud:
Microsoft's plans to defraud their customers regarding the Java compatibility of J++:
> "At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."
Once you get away from the antitrust laws, and start looking at the real crimes, then the proper punishment becomes more obvious, namely, jail time for various Microsoft officials.
The public is best served by Free Market competition. It is also our right to compete in a free society.
Unfortunately, competition can be subverted by those who are willing to break the law. And by methods similar to the above, and other fraudulent means (paying people to lie, in magazine articles, letters to the editor, etc.), Microsoft has managed to destroy better products and competitors without actually having to compete. Microsoft's behavior, and methods, are more like those of a crime syndicate, than a competitive business.
When there is competition, some people become very rich, while increasing the wealth of society as a whole. But when companies use criminal means, they can become rich, while causing great damage to society as a whole. The latter is the case with Microsoft.
And the damage has been great. To give just one example, Microsoft's sabotage of Java in web clients has delayed the development of e-commerce by at least half a decade, at a cost to the world of tens of billions of dollars. I sometimes wonder what that would translate to in lost lives.
Similarly, Microsoft used sabotage and fraud to stop competition in the PC OS market (DR-DOS, Geoworks, OS/2), in PC applications market (WordPerfect), and in the PC browser market (Netscape). As a result, new developments involving the PC (thin clients, PVRs, grid supercomputers, 64-bit computing), and the Internet (tabs, interactive web clients) stagnated for years until new competitors, such as Linux and Mozilla, came along, enabling the new development
Insisted on Windows without MSIE. That would be more useful to some segments of the population, especially people who have ditched IE for good, and don't want it. I know I'd support it, and it'd fuel the drive to code an open source Explorer replacement, I hope.
Those who can remember the history of the PC and Microsoft (unlike the grandparent poster) will already be aware of the illegal means that Microsoft used to gain their near-monopoly position.
First, Microsoft never beat Apple in a competition. The open PC platform beat the Apple platform. Microsoft just went along for the ride.
The real issue is how Microsoft prevented competition on the PC. Here are some of the highlights:
1. DR-DOS provided a better OS, after Microsoft had allowed MS-DOS to stagnate for years. Microsoft stopped DR-DOS by a) adding a fraudulent error message to Windows suggesting that DR-DOS was incompatible, which MS knew was false; b) having false stories published about problems with DR-DOS; and c) adding code to Windows specifically to make it fail when run on DR-DOS.
2. OS/2 was on its way to being better than Windows. Microsoft had false stories published, and had people lying in public forums (see the Barkto incident) to destroy OS/2's reputation. MS is also purported to have provided intentionally-flaky code as their part of the OS/2 deal, and changed the Windows APIs to destroy application compatibility with OS/2.
3. Geoworks provided an excellent Windows-95-like GUI for the PC, but five years earlier. Microsoft made a change to the next release of MS-DOS which caused Geoworks to stop working.
4. WordPerfect had captured the majority of the word processing market with their better product. Microsoft lied to WordPerfect about their plans for OS/2, causing WordPerfect to waste time and resources, then sabotaged WordPerfect on Windows by providing intentionally-flaky Windows APIs.
5. Netscape had captured the majority of the browser market before Microsoft even noticed the existence of the Internet. Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by threatening or paying companies to break their deals with Netscape. With no profits coming in, Netscape could no longer afford to improve their browser, or even stay in business. Microsoft also preloaded IE with Windows, and forbid OEMs to preload Netscape, causing IE to "win" by default. This case has been thoroughly documented by the DOJ.
6. Java was a high level, VM-based, cross-platform language, that promised to open up a whole new market for e-commerce, and other web-based services. Microsoft put out a version of Java (J++) that intentionally broke compatibility in order to "kill cross-platform Java by growing the polluted Java market." Microsoft also threatened Intel, and others, to force them to stop any work to help Java run well on the PC.
There are other cases (Bristol, Stacker, and so on).
To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has never managed to defeat a strong competitor through competition. Instead, Microsoft's history shows repeated cases of using illegal means (mostly sabotage and fraud) to undermine a competitor, while Microsoft copied the competitor's product.
The net result is that PC and Internet development are 5-10 years behind where they would have been, were it not for Microsoft's various acts of sabotage.
Windows XP has the "Set Program Access and Defaults" control panel that allows the user to set the default web browser, email program, media player, instant message app, and JVM. It also allows the user to fully remove access to the Microsoft versions of those programs. The "Set Program Access and Defaults" control panel is available from the Start menu and available from the "Add or Remove Programs" control panel.
.exes of those programs, go ahead and do it. The problem is that many demanded that the underlying dlls also get removed, which would do damage to the platform because other apps and other parts of the OS rely on the functionality provided by those dlls. Removing DirectShow, for example, would break almost all media players on Windows. It would be similar to removing the QT api from OSX.
As for removing apps altogether, if you want to delete the
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Sure, perhaps 5 years ago the arguement could have stood, but multimedia is right now an integral part of many applications. Millions of people like me quite literally NEED a media handling capability to do their jobs like other need notepad to do theirs. The world doesn't end at text, and neither should the an OS.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
MS can throw whatever they want onto the CD and into the installer if it wants to--hell, that is what Linux distros do too. The point is that the components are SEPARABLE. You can do a custom/"expert" install of Linux and choose not to install a web browser or media players or even a GUI if you are savvy and have special needs, or you can just hit "default workstation" or whatever and it will put a GUI, web browser, media player and even the office suite (or several of each of those!).
.WMF files on my mail server thank you. Also, what if I like alternatives and will never use the "default" components? If I use another media player, another browser or GUI environment all the factory MS cruft just wastes processor cycles, memory and hard drive space.
That is not what I have a beef about--I'd be perfectly happy if MS had a "one click" install that puts all the toys on--hell they could even put MS Office into the Windows install for all I care. What I do NOT like is that there is NO WAY to avoid installing all or parts of the GUI, IE, WMP etc etc..even if I don't NEED or WANT those things. I'm NEVER gonna play
And your comment about Apple starting it all...well you're right...and that is a big reason I never got a Mac. There are times when I LIKED the command line and scripts and stuff and it frustrate me to no end not to at least have that as an OPTION. I DID have an Atari ST and that was similar, but even with the Atari you could shut down GEM and use it with a CP/M68K command line environment. And now even Apple has seen the light, at least partly. MacOS X follows the UNIX philosophy underneath. I still get the impression the GUI is welded on a bit too tightly but I think with PCs being more complex and interconnected that a hyper-monolithic architecture is outdated and unsuited to todays needs.
It would seem that despite the rants of anger towards Microsoft that they were unfairly bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP, the public at large would not seem to agree and is not actually demanding any such stripped down version.
At what point was this not obvious?
Most consumers don't see the bundling as a bad thing. Most of them actually want their OS to include a media player by default -- that's why Microsoft put it in there. The EU didn't do this to protect consumers. The EU did this simply to demonstrate their power over a huge company, to try to send a message and put Microsoft in its place.
Isn't it interesting how the loudest whiners against Microsoft's bundling choices have been companies that legitimately competed and lost? For example, Real has repeatedly whined about Microsoft causing them to lose sales and marketshare during the late 90's, but anyone who actually used and objectively compared Windows Media Player with RealPlayer knows that the reason Real lost was because they made a shittier product, not because of anything Microsoft did. Similarly, anyone who actually used and compared Netscape 5.0 and IE 5.0 knows that IE5 was just more stable and faster.
Suppose something better than Windows Media Player came along. Most people would simply download it. They wouldn't keep using Windows Media Player just because it's what came with the OS. You even have a real-life example of this with Firefox versus IE. It just goes to show you how asinine all these arguments are against Microsoft's bundling, and how insulting it is to users to assume they are so sheeplike that they won't use anything that didn't come preinstalled.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
I'd just confine them to their platform.
Stick 'em on 32 bits and leave them there. (Okay, let 'em fight it out with Linux and OS X (he writes from his 64 bit G5 iMac.)
When the world completes the shift to 64 bits, the problem is gone, and so is M$
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Does anyone know a PC supplier that *does* provide Windows XP N? Or is this an impossible to obtain product?
Dell: The new Windows XP without media player is coming out.
MS: We'll punish you for supplying it by charging the same amount as normal XP.
Dell: Might as well go with the normal version then.
Geek: Linux RULEZZZ!!@@!@!!!
Geek using Windows: Who needs XP when I have 2k?
Average Joe: Windows Media Player, what's that?
Its not that people feel that its unnecessary, its that people who don't use WMP don't use it reguardless of whether its installed or not. People don't feel the need to change something which can easily be avioided without buying a "special" version of XP.
Basically this is all just crap. The EU is nothing but a bunch of socialists that really don't want any compitition. I don't run MS but some 90% of the pc's of the world do. So what!!. All the sniping and griping is not going to change that. The EU is not going to change that. Only users and companies that can be pointed to alternatives will change that. So my advice to everyone is to do Like I did, push for alternatives at work and teach everyone that will listen about the alternatives. In my case its Linux.
so does that mean that microsoft bundling WMP with windows is okay if they open up the formats of WMA and WMV?
Comparing Windows to fish and WMP to cheese is absolutely, utterly ridiculous and you know it. Fish and cheese have nothing to do with one another: fish is certainly not a platform for cheese. OSes and bundled software are fundamentally linked: you must have an OS to run the software, and buyers expect a new computer with an OS to come with functionality built-in.
A more accurate comparison would be a propane barbecue grill. Let's say a grill company becomes a monopoly somehow because its propane grill commands a 90% market share. Now let's say the grill company decides to start bundling things with the grill, like a set of grill utensils (tongs, fork, etc.) These utensils aren't the greatest, but they're pretty good and they integrate nicely with the grill because they have special attachments which make them stow away easily.
Keep in mind that no one is forcing people to USE the utensils, and nothing prevents people from going to the store and buying other utensils (or even using their old utensils). The built-in utensils are just there if you choose to use them.
But now the old utensil companies are very upset (some would say mad). Sales are down because many propane grill customers are happy with their new grill's built-in utensils and don't see a reason to buy theirs anymore. And despite the fact that every other grill company also bundles utensils with their grills, the utensil companies blame only ONE company -- PropaneUSA -- for their falling sales.
The problem here is that the Utensil makers business model is seriously flawed. They don't really have anything to offer above and beyond what PropaneUSA offers. Utensils aren't rocket science, or else PropaneUSA wouldn't be able to make them. And fundamentally, the economy of scale that PropaneUSA commands means that it can make and package these utensils more efficiently than can the little independent utensil manufacturers. Once in a blue moon, a truly innovative utensil manufacturer might come along and sell some cool utensils with fancy features that people are willing to buy because they are so clearly superior to the bundled utensils. But until then, most of these companies would be better off looking for something else to manufacture.
Failed companies are as important to capitalism as successful companies. As any economist will tell you, capitalism's true genius is that it weeds out companies that have become superfluous and no longer serve a useful purpose. Countries with laws that artificially prop up companies after the market would otherwise have destroyed them are undermining the efficiency of their economy as a whole. Those workers could be doing useful work elsewhere; instead they're hell-bent on making utensils that people really don't want that badly.
RealMedia... er, I mean "the utensil company" ... needs to waste less time complaining about bundling and more time finding customers who want to buy their products. When's the last time you wanted to go out and install RealPlayer?
Why should Microsoft have to unbundle their software?
Must Ford sell you a car without an engine so you can put a Chevy 350 in it?
Do we demand that Epson make printers that accept HP ink cartridges?
Should we not be able to buy a left shoe from Nike that matches a right shoe from Adidas?
Why can't I write checks against my Bank of America account on check blanks issued by Wells Fargo?
Microsoft should not be forced to unbundle software, because there are alternatives out there. Let the market demand drive the development and sales of software. If it just so happens that Microsoft makes the best product at the best value (in the eyes of the average consumer, not the average slashdot reader), then Microsoft will "win." So be it. When something better comes along, it will win. What happened when Firefox grabbed a serious chunk of IE's market share? Microsoft announced plans to introduce Firefox-like features in IE. That's right, something better came along, and MS had to adapt.
So will you. Free market capitalism RULES. Communist-style market controls SUCK.
For myself? I would like to see Linux and other open-source products succeed, but I use Microsoft products because they work the way I expect, and uniformly. Sure, they are harder to administer, but they are easier to use. It doesn't matter how tight your code is, how easy your product is to configure, it's not worth a hill of beans if the user experience sucks. That's why Microsoft wins in the market -- they pay attention to their USERS. Know why they called their most recent desktop OS "Windows XP"? Because of the user eXPerience. That's what they worked hard on, that's what they marketed, that's what people liked, that's what people bought. If it had sucked, people would have demanded -- and got -- Windows 98. As a matter of fact, you could still buy Windows 98 after Windows Me disappeared from the shelves, because the user experience with Windows ME sucked, worse than Windows 98.
I once used Outlook Express instead of Netscape or Mozilla because it was a better IMAP client and because it supported multiple POP3 accounts. When Thunderbird came along, I switched, because I felt it was a better product. If OE -- or something else -- becomes better than Thunderbird, I'll switch again.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
"The IE fix corrects a remote code-execution vulnerability that exists due to the way the browser handles PNG (Portable Network Graphics) files."
A completely and truly open format and Microsoft can't get it right?! God they had better hope that they never lose their monopoly 'cause they can't compete on a level playing ground.
(Let the modding down begin... but it's the truth!)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Perhaps the EU's actions were unnecessary?
Ok, so from now on the ignorance of the masses shall pevail over decisions of courts. Yes, I know I'm a bit over the edge with this, but still. If the 6packs don't get it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done, or it was a bad decision. I don't say it was good either, but I admit, that something needed to be done, and this is also a bit more than nothing, and I don't think it was unnecessary. It is always good to know that such large companies are not omnipotent after all.
Anyway, this probably didn't hurt MS more than a fly on your arm. But at least was some sort of signaling towards MS that some of its practices are not really loved all around this globe, and there are ways to do at least something against them.
If I were to buy a winxp these days, which I'm absolutely not, then I'll opt for a such version, without further thought, no matter there's no price difference. I could make it perfectly multimedia-usable in 10 minutes and I'd also raise the currently probably non-existent sales numbers of the version.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Because they have found and are using an OS that kicks Windows in the groin, but they can't get as many apps for it as the market would dictate if there were no MS monopoly.
They know there are Jabillions (i.e. very large number) of developers out there that only develop for MS Windows because that is where 95% of the market rests. If Office was not made by the same company as Windows, then Office would not 'magically' perform better on Windows. It would pay the makers of Office to port it to other platforms (e.g. Linux, BeOS). With Office on other platforms, users could migrate more easily. Developers migrate to follow the user base and bang! More apps for other operating systems.
Also, most Windows users are 'teh 1uzers'.
The commonest use I've seen for WMP on computers is to avoid the company's password policy on machines used at work. This would probably be the big driver for uptake of XP N around the world.
There is a bug (feature) in WMP, and possibly in other media players - if it is running a visualisation, even if it is minimised, then it will interfer with the action of screensaver activation, so that your screensaver will not fire up after some set period of time. This is great if you're watching a DVD at home. If you're running a PC in an unsecured office, with highly confidential data on screen (say, you're the manager of a [generic industrial plant] writing this month's production and safety report - I've seen it!) and you've got WMP running in the background, then the company's mandatory screensaver policy is bypassed, and you don't need to enter your password for the 20th time that day.
Someone set up that 5 minute screensaver policy, and the 8-chars+2-digits+2-punctuations minimum password policy, and is expending effort to enforce it, and they're doing it for a reason. But this WMP bug/feature actively undermines this obviously important security policy.
Worse, it does this undermining at an appreciable cost in network bandwidth. Take the above mentioned [generic industrial plant], approximately 150 PCs going 24 hours a day, each one with a 128k "Internet Radio" channel running, so that when you come in from the shopfloor you don't need to re-enter that damned long password which you had to change last week ... That's a substantial bandwidth you've got to pay for on your link, and it seriously undermines the business use of the network. Which makes my life harder as an intermittant contractor.
I'm not sure which will happen first - a remote exploit through media streams, or the company-wide replacement of WinXP with WinXP N. In a security-conscious company, I'd like to think the latter; but since I live in the real world, I'd expect the whole company WAN to be taken down by an exploit before anything is done.
I'm sure that MS have thought all this through. Which is why the inclusion of a media player of any sort in WinXP "Pro" absolutely beggars belief. I can only believe that the people at Microsoft consider their job is to listen to networked radio all day, not write code, analyse manufacture problems, control quality, or fill in expenses forms.
Anyway, I look forward to exploits that hit streamed audio and/ or video. Then I can say "I told you so!" (and yes, I do know what my clients would do if they knew my name. Shoot the messenger.) Crackers and Expoliterz, get to it! There's a *world* of business data out there to steal, and great gobs of botnets to construct.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
OK, I agree with the fine and forcing MS to disclose API's (let's not forget that part of the ruling).
The WinXP lite is nonsense as long as the normal version is available.
What should urgently be addressed is the forced sale of Windows licenses with new PC's and specially portables. In addition, not honoring the terms of the EULA by both OEM's and MS is outragious (try to return a Windows copy if you rejected the EULA).
I have been Windows-free for 6 years now (After 8 years of using Linux). I'm out to buy my first new portable now, and it seems I will have to buy a Windows license which I'm never going to use.
That 50 MB isn't the problem. The problem is that you have an application that exposes system vulnerabilities and you're not even using the app. This means that you have to keep it patched which means more downloads and vulnerabilities that you don't need and/or want.
The biggest problem with any OS these days is complexity. Anything that stands in the way of reducing that complexity is a problem. If that barrier is there so that MS can stamp out another competitor then it's even worse.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Split MS this way:
:)
Microsoft consumer:
-xbox
-windows xp
-ms office (and other aps)
-games
-all enduser based stuff
Microsoft Business:
-Server 2003
-SQL Server
-ISA server
-all server based stuff
This way we end up with two seperate companies, one controlling the servers, another the desktops and the consumer apps and devices. The 'server' company will have to publish standards on how to interoperate with their servers, hence other clients can also interoperate.
Big advantage is that there will be TWO microsoft operating systems going their separate way. Each with their own market, each with their own improvements. All businesses will be forced to seperate negoticiations for desktops and servers.
After a while, most viruses will only work on one of the two operating systems.
pol
European Linux user, living in Antwerp
Forcing Microsoft to deliver Windows without MediaPlayer is right out stupid. It will have absolutely zero impact on the IT market place and MS monopoly position. A much more sensible sanction would have been for the EU government, and related boddies, to stop using MS software. THAT would have an impact.
Can't you easily remove Dashboard in Mac OS X by simply typing "rm -rf /"?
Then the "know how" I believe you were referring to requires salvaging data and reinstalling the OS on your toasted OS.
What I want to know is, when people say break up microsoft, what do they mean, and defend their position as to why they think it's a good idea.
Microsoft is currently abusing their monopoly on Windows to extend into MSN.com. It's been the default home page on IE for more than 5 years, and Microsoft abuses it's monopoly to restrict (in some agreements) the ability of OEMS to change MS/MSN options in IE. According to the OPK, the OEM cannot remove the IE Links for MS, and MSN is the default search in IE (though the OEM can use their own home page). I'm not sure if they still prohibit other browsers from being installed by OEMs... I remember Vaio's had Netscape at one point.
Also, I'd like to see MS forced to use open document formats by default. Office is a cash cow that I hope OOo stomps all over. Hamburger...
Fish and cheese have nothing to do with one another: fish is certainly not a platform for cheese.
You are wrong. Fish and cheese do go together, they are both foods and sometimes complementary ones. Fish is literally a platform for cheese in some cases, i.e. grilled salmon topped with mozzarella.
Let's say a grill company becomes a monopoly somehow because its propane grill commands a 90% market share... And despite the fact that every other grill company also bundles utensils with their grills, the utensil companies blame only ONE company -- PropaneUSA -- for their falling sales.
You are even more wrong. The problem is you are contradicting yourself. If a grill company has a monopoly then, practically speaking, there are no other grill companies to also bundle utensils. To make your analogy more correct look at this theoretical market situation. If it was the case then there would be only one propane grill manufacturer to buy from, and propane grills would have to be integral to doing business for pretty much every even moderately sized company on the planet. Now you can get a build your own propane grill kit made up by a bunch of people who are fed up with the fact that PropaneUSA grills explode occasionally and often can't be lit properly so they invented their own (but can't successfully sell it commercially because no grill sales outlet can risk offending PropaneUSA). You can buy a pear brand electric cooking system that works pretty well, but is not really the same thing and is only given away built into the pear brand of houses. Now we're starting to get a market that resembles the current OS market.
In this market utensil manufacturers are very justified in complaining that they have been pushed out of the market by the PropaneUSA company's illegal extension of its monopoly. Sure maybe they saw the writing on the wall when PropaneUSA put all the propane tank manufacturers out of business and all the apron manufacturers, but if the trend continues, they will be putting the automobile manufactures out of business in another 10 years. It's not like people should choose what business to go into based upon which one a monopoly is going to take over next with an inferior product that they bundle.
The problem with your analogy as you wrote it was you say "gained a monopoly" but then treat them as if they were not a monopoly for the rest of your argument. Maybe you don't believe MS is a monopoly or maybe you just don't understand what a monopoly really is and just how badly it can be abused. If there were no more advances in propane grill technology, utensils, or aprons well I think we could all live with that. We're not talking about propane grills with MS though. We're talking about the entire field of software slowly grinding to a halt. We're already 5-10 years behind where we would be with a healthy market and it is only going to get worse unless the laws are actually enforced... laws that have stopped this same thing before.
- where can I swap a standard XP CD for this. I also don't want real, QT or any other bloated media player that thinks it going to do everything for me. I like media player classic (find it on sourceforge) - Its quick to load, and nippy. If I want playlists I use winamp. I dont want the rest of this junk. If I build a PC for friends and families I'll also recommend this version - Anything that by default acquires a license for my music is something I do NOT want and will do anything to avoid.
To Slashdot or not to Slashdot. That is the question (that will cause me to fail an interview)
MS wins by bundling one that's "good enough", even if it's very bad in terms of features people won't bother to find out about the alternatives. Wheras by having to ensure people like windows media player enough to download it, MS is forced to include features the equal of their competitors.
I am trolling
On the Amiga, data types were handled as plug-ins. If you needed the capability to open a jpeg you added the data type.
That would be great if it worked that way on Windows. MS could go ahead and include all the plug-ins it wanted, and if you didn't like IE or its rendering engine you could "unplug" it and "plug in" Gecko. OR, if you aren't processing JPEG or MPEG data at all you could just unplug those extensions.
That isn't the way Windows works however--there is absolutely no consistent interface for handling data and no logical delineation between components. What stemas me is that much of this wasn't done for legacy/compatibility/technical limitations--it was done DELIBERATELY. IE USED to be a distinct component where Windows would run without it just fine. MS DELIBERATELY mixed it right in so its dlls sat right along Kernel, User, GDI and so on and encouraged its own developers and others to add as many hooks and ties as they could. Then they went and did that with WMP. Now there is an astonishing amount of software that ties into these libraries for different reasons and so on, and there is no published/advocated interface that makes IE and WMP libraries "pluggable" with replacements.
This is analgous to hardware systems that have these super-integrated motherboards with sound, video, IDE, network, kitchen sink etc all soldered together. If you think the sound is crappy you can add a card, but you still have the built in stuff sucking power, generating heat and hanging around to be a potential nusiance or point of failure. Such a thing is tolerable for a disposable home or office PC but there are legitimate reasons for avoiding that sore of integration.
If MS wants to sell its Windows platform as suitable for anything you could use the hardware for, then it MUST re-architect it so that its components can be decoupled, much like it is still possible to buy hardware (with thinkgs like video and sound on separate cards).
I can't believe you're trying to defend your idiotic analogy. This is funny.
Fish and cheese do not go together. You have to think really hard of an example where they do.
Contrast this with Media Players and Operating Systems. The two go hand-in hand. You CANNOT INSTALL a mainstream operating system today that does not include a media player built-in.
This is absolutely untrue! Businesses today have many PC options other than Microsoft: Sun, IBM, Apple, and Novell to name a few. I know businesses that run their entire company using a single IBM AS/400 with lots of terminals. The simple fact of the matter is, companies CHOOSE to buy a Microsoft Windows PC because they like the benefits they get from the most popular platform: low cost, massive support available, and tons of available software. They could spend a few hundred $$ extra per PC and buy an Apple computer, for instance, but they do not. Why do you think that is? Someone is twisting their arm? Please.
Contrast this with AT&T's control of the US phone network prior to 1984. You weren't even allowed to plug in a non-AT&T phone into their network, much less hook up your proprietary network into theirs without a special (and expensive) agreement! There was absolutely no choice there whatsoever.
You don't understand the Sherman Antitrust Act very well, do you? Monopolies are only guilty of a violation when they have used unfair, anticompetetive practices to stomp out competition to achieve the monopoly or keep competitors at bay. Adding an industry-standard feature to a product that already has high marketshare is absolutely not illegal! And if you think it is, I defy you to cite ANY case in history where it has been declared illegal in a court of law!
If PropaneUSA had colluded to fix prices, or bullied steel suppliers into selling exclusively to it and not to its competitors, then you would be right: they would be engaging in "anticompetitive practices" under the Sherman Antitrust Act and would become an illegal monopoly. In fact, there is a very precise list of activities in which a monopoly is prohibited from engaging, such as charging different customers different prices (known as a "discriminating monopoly" and covered in the Clayton Act) and engaging in inter-corporate stock deals that create market collusion. If you were at all familiar with anti-trust law, you would know this already.
You think I don't know? I think you don't know what a monopoly is! Monopolies exist everywhere, and they are perfectly legal until they violate antitrust law. Engaging in anti-competitive practices is what makes a monopoly illegal, NOT the fact that they have an overwhelming market share.
You have absolutely no way to back up a claim that we are "5-10 years behind". That's just rhetorical nonsense. And if that's the extent of your argument, then I don't think Microsoft has anything to worry about in court.
So Apple made the mistake and went with a closed platform. Not MS's fault. Win95 had people lined up outside of stores. No other product did. Period. No one ever heard of Geoworks, but they knew about Windows. Business is Business. Some companies may have had slightly better products earlier (according to you), but the reality is they couldn't execute and make a successful product. Being business savvy is not illegal. Sorry, try again.
I can't believe you're trying to defend your idiotic analogy.
You're the one making blanket declarative statements. "Fish and cheese have NOTHING in common." Except they are both foods, both sold in the U.S. both animal products and a few thousand other things. And then you don't even own up to being wrong. Do you still insist that they have nothing in common?
Businesses today have many PC options other than Microsoft: Sun, IBM, Apple, and Novell to name a few.
Congratulations you just completely changed your argument. You first argued MS was a monopoly, but what they were doing was ok, then you switched to MS isn't a monopoly. This is especially interesting because I specifically asked about this point earlier.
You don't understand the Sherman Antitrust Act very well, do you?
In 1962 the supreme court ruled that bundling was violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act when the bundled products were being used to extend a monopoly on one product into a second monopoly. And you claim I don't understand it?
Engaging in anti-competitive practices is what makes a monopoly illegal
See the above, bundling has already specifically been listed as violation of the Sherman Act and described in some detail, almost as if MS's actions were being described.
You have absolutely no way to back up a claim that we are "5-10 years behind". That's just rhetorical nonsense. And if that's the extent of your argument, then I don't think Microsoft has anything to worry about in court.
Heh, no logical argument eh? Ask any expert in computer science who has been an expert since the 70's what has happened. How long did it take to get tabbed browsing on IE after it was introduced? How long before they added internet capabilities to windows after all other OS's added it? As for court, well I won't be arguing in court and I doubt anyone will. You see they have been spreading their ill gotten gains pretty liberally among politicians and we all know the system can definitely be bought.
Like it or not MS has been ruled a monopoly in three different courts in three different countries and are a textbook example of an antitrust violation. You're either a very deluded MS apologist or you're a paid shill. I hope the latter since then at least you are profiting from the ruin of the computing industry instead of just cheering it on like a lackwit.
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.
well, if you had the choice of a bunch of software and exactly the same software with things taken out for the same price, which would you choose?
I truly fail to understand this debate. Would anybody go buy a car that doesn't have a radio, or brakes? Of course not, how would you drive the car to the brake store? And why go to another shop to add the radio when the dealer can put it in? However many, people replace the radio, or upgrade the brakes. To add to this analogy, only a few years ago did third party companies start making add-on GPS units for vehicles. They sold well and made sense, so car manufactures adopted the device and started making it availible as an option, and mostly likley one day will be standard. Likewise with the radio, then tape set, then CD player. Or seat belts and airbags and side airbags... So it is with Windows, IE started as an add-ons, and then came standard. There is NOTHING to stop anyone from installing Real or QuickTime. In fact since QuickTime is owned by a ultimatly WB, if I want to see online trailers for movies from the WB I have to install QuickTime (sounds a little monopolistic by some people's terms). I also will never understand why this debate always circles around IE, WMV and MSN Messenger. I've never heard complaints about: disk defragmenter, backup, system restore, firewall, find, address book or hyperterminal... to name but a few things that have been included in releases, but are also sold by third-party. In fact MS products most likley create more business then their practices curb. Just look at the recent release of the Sharepoint suite. Many companies formed just to extend sharepoint, and are doing quite well off it. Writing into a well defined and documented API is easier that building a product from scratch, and thus has resulted in more options, which is better for the consumer. And the idea that anyone thinks these things are 'free' is beyond me. Nothing is free, MS just does a better job at strategy. The IE client out there makes the selling points of IIS and .Net that much better. MSN Messenger paved the path for Live Communication Server. WMV allowed for MSN Music service and the Window Media Center Edition. No one complains about Adobe putting Acrobat reader out there for free and then selling the authoring component for a pretty price.