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?
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...
When Apple does it it's good. When Microsoft does it it's bad.
And when Microsoft stops doing it, nobody buys it.
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?
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.
Never mind that if there is competition, there is no monopoly.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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 goal was that I could want different functionality without switching to another OS.
Of course, you could always install your own browser, your own mail client, etc. on Windows. However, every time you clicked on a hyperlink outside of your browser, for example, IE and not your browser of choice would launch. It's why they have this "Set Program Access and Defaults" thing now in Windows. Some people want to go further and want the option of removing preinstalled software. Why would I want IE permanently installed if I never use it? That said, the EU seems not to have really got it, as forcing a company to ship a piece of software that's sure to flop is not exactly the best way to fix the problem (not to mention their own image).
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
Most of the public doesn't care enough to go through the effort of "upgrading?" to a less OS.
Of course they don't. The thing about illegal competition is that it's illegal because it's an abuse of your position. The customer feels that he's getting a deal, but that's not the point.
Taking the common gas station example, customers get really happy when one gas station underprices another by $.50. The fact that this is hurting the consumer in the long run (less competition) escapes that customer. He just wants cheap gas.
The same is true of Microsoft. The fact that they effectively put Real and Netscape out of business is the real point, not what the consumer feels. As a result, this EU decision is weak at best.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
...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
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.
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.
The suppliers of other media players are hurt because Microsoft, by bundling Windows Media Player (a product in a competitive market) with Windows (a product where Microsoft has a monopoly) forces customers to pay for Windows Media Player whether they want it or not. Microsoft can roll the cost of WMP in with Windows, and make the customers pay for both when they only wanted Windows.
Suppliers of other media players cannot force customers to buy their product. So they are at a disadvantage. Anti-monopoly laws that have been on the books for a century or more state that such cross-subsidies are illegal.
If there was a competitive Operating Systems market, then Microsoft couldn't force money out of customers' wallets, either, because customers could choose an OS supplier that did not inflate the price of their OS with a Media Player.
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
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Wasn't 100% sure, were you saying developers being forced to install 3rd party apps wasn't a bad thing?
I thought that was a bloody TERRIBLE thing!!!!! I remember back when this was the case and soon I'd have 2-3 apps for every purpose on my machine. And MUCH worse was when different applications needed the same 3rd party app, but both needed different versions!
AHHHHHHHH!!!!! I still have nightmares. I for one am very happy for developers to develop for IE and Media Player!!!!!
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
The suppliers of other media players are hurt because Microsoft...
Who cares? It's not Microsoft's fault that a companys business model is on commoditized software that people don't care enough to switch to let alone pay for. There's no market for a media player because there shouldn't be. I understand that Microsoft is a monopoly so things are different, but you can't expect Microsoft to stop adding value into its products so that consumers have to continue paying for hundreds of dollars of addons just to do something as "1990s" as playing a video on their computer. I agree that because MS is a monopoly that they should be forced to allow third party alternatives, but not remove value from their product.
If there was a competitive Operating Systems market, then Microsoft couldn't force money out of customers' wallets, either, because customers could choose an OS supplier that did not inflate the price of their OS with a Media Player.
When Windows came out it was very competitively priced. Actually, if I remember correctly it was cheaper than any product offering from any other company (IBM, Apple, etc.). When taking inflation into account Windows is actually cheaper now than it was before it was a monopoly. The price never went up even when IE, Windows Media Player, and a slew of other features were added to the product. Software has never followed hardware pricing (droping like a rock after a year) nor should it, it doesn't lose value over time (unless a new version is released) and it's the reason you have the hardware in the first place.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Probably a vast majority of the people driving cars (at least in the USA) probably don't smoke. So why does every car equipped still ship with several cigarette lighters?
The answer is that third-party products (e.g. cellphones, laptops, and other power adaptors) use the cigarette lighter interface for their powersource. So we need cigarette lighters in our cars for the 3rd-party products, even if we don't use them directly for their immediate purpose, i.e. smoking.
Any alternative power or cigarette-lighting interface will face a significant mountain to its business, due to the installbase of the classic Cigarette Lighting and Power Interface (CLPI).
So why don't I complain about the classic CLPI's monopoly? For one, it's a completely open standard. If you want to create a new power attachment to use it, you can with zero strings attached. Likewise, if you want to create a competing cigarette lighter implementing the classic CLPI, you're good to go, and nobody will whine or complain because of incompatibilities. Consequently (and also another reason for my lack of complaining), nobody really has a monopoly on a single cigarette lighter and nobody is leveraging it to gain access to new fields, which is patently untrue for its computer-world monopoly counterparts.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
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?