Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Chided Over Exclusive Music Idea
grumpyman writes "The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement."
the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers..." Wow, they let the new coffee getter conference call with Sony by himself? Huh.
How in the world can they blame the low level worker when it would have to be a management decision. Now are they saying their new management has been stuck under a rock for 5 years? How many people don't know about Microsoft and the monopoly case against them?
Yeah well that's closer to the truth than you think. 10% of the company is comprised of co-ops. They typically put in longer hours, do more work, and are the real boys and girls in the trenches.
I swear, you can't make this shit up. Show of hands: who here believes a single thing MS says anymore?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Well perhaps they would get more senior people doing it if there were considerable fines and minor jail terms for continued attempts to thwart the princicples of the settlement as minimal as they are. This failure to apply genuine fiscal pressures upon microsoft, especially considering the cost to government of the continued overseeing of the monopolistic machinations of bog balls and wee willie, is very strange to say the least ;-).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
They are "testing the water" to see how far they can go expanding their grasp without anyone reacting. Next time they will go a little less far and nobody will react etc...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Completely different situation. Apple makes the iPod and has every right to limit it to run whatever software it chooses. If MS made the player nobody would have a right to say that it must run other companies' software. The problem here is MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software.
I think this has been discussed quite a bit in the past already. Apple can at most be accused of having a monopoly in the mp3-player world, and that's not quite true (there are a lot of competing players in the market, it's just that nobody buys them). They also haven't attempted to kill their competition through monopolistic practices. Their competition survives just fine by using alternative software, and it isn't iTunes or FairPlay that's the cause of the competition's failure to gain any marketshare.
On the other hand, Microsoft has used and still wants to use their monopoly in the OS market to force out competition (OS2) and even in other markets (Netscape).
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
No, because Apple isn't twisting the arm of hardware manufacturers to use their software. You buy an Ipod from Apple and it comes with Apple Software. It the same as if you bought a Sony MD, you're be expected to use Sony software (sonicstage was perhaps the worst piece of junk ever i might add). This is clearly not the same as Microsoft (a software company, OK they do make keyboards) saying to Creative or whomever is creating the devices that they have to use WMP.
I could see the truth if I was blind.
Not from how I interpret it. The main difference between the two is that Apple owns iTunes, iPod, and the music store, while Microsoft only owns its Media Player and the operating system. If Apple wants to restrict their iPod to only their product, it's their choice. If Bob makes an MP3 player that will only load music from BobSongs Music Player, it's his choice; he controls both, and that decision is made by him. In either case, if people don't want to use the designated music loader, then they shouldn't buy the music player. Alice has no right to go to Bob and force him to change his product to use only her music player.
In other words, if Microsoft makes a music player of their own, then they can restrict it to only using WMP. But they shouldn't be able to force other MP3 player manufacturers to only use WMP, even though Microsoft controls the operating system.
Fantastic ... Would same judge please slap Microsoft silly for the BS it is currently pulling in regards to the OpenDocument format?
Well, they would say that, woudn't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies
low level business person who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement.
Ballmer?
The ______ Agenda
White House pressures Congress to reject torture amendment.
The majority of the individual employees probably are as you say.
That still doesn't change the fact that Microsoft as a company *is* a huge organization out to rape our wallets. In the current business/legal climate it almost has to be, in order to not be sued by the shareholders.
Unfortunately that job they are working so hard at is to rape our wallets, for the benefit of their stockholders.
The fact that the company is comprised of people doing the best they can is not really a valid argument against the idea that Microsoft is a huge evil organization. In fact, I would imagine that most, if not all, huge evil organizations are filled with regular people doing the best they can.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
You must have forgotten about MSAV. It existed and now it doesn't. I don't know why they dropped it but I suspect that there were two main reasons:
1) They couldn't compete. An AV company must be able to release new signatures within hours. MS can't make a pot of coffee in less than a month.
2) Liability. Right now MS can release any crap they want and argue that it was the customer's fault that their system picked up 6 worms and 2 backdoors in 20 minutes. By shipping MSAV, they acknowleged in a measurable way that their software was insecure and may have made themselves more liable for failing to produce a secure product.
"You are smoking crack."
No crack.... you're just confused.
"The iPod and iTunes are as anti-competitive as it gets."
Not at all... watch as I destroy your whole argument.
"The hardware is completely closed and no third party software can run on it."
That's not anticompetitive... Apple creates the whole product. You might as well go after radio manufacturers (for example) for not allowing other companies to automatically be suppliers for their knobs and buttons. If you create the entire product (hardware and software) you can include as much or as little as you want with it. If Windows could be used to the exclusion of PC hardware... then they would be allowed to bundle as much as they want without concern of leveraging their illegal monopoly.
"There are also a limited number of codec's that work with the iPod."
Actually, the iPod is pretty much on par with all other music players with regard to the number of codecs it can play.
"The only thing that you can do is play AAC, MP3 and DRM'd apple music on it."
Wrong. The iPod can play songs encoded with these CODECS:
MP3 (from 32 Kbps to 320 Kbps)
MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR)
AIFF *
WAV (with no compression)
The following require iPod software 1.3 or later:
M4A AAC *
M4P AAC (Protected) *
M4B AAC (iTunes Music Store Spoken Word files) *
The following require iPod software 2.2 or later or iPod mini 1.1 or later:
Apple Lossless Encoder
* Requires iTunes 4 or iTunes 4 for Windows. AAC files also require the most recent update to the iPod software.
"It is a black box. It even enforces DRM practices on non-DRM music."
Its a Black box... and of course also a white one... and no it does not enforce DRMpractices on non-DRM music.
"Apple chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only apple products to access the iTunes music store - No iPod, no iTunes."
Motorola chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only motorola LCD displays in their phones. No Motorola LCD display, no motorola phone.
Whirlpool chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only Whirlpool dish soap dispensers in their dish washers. No Whirlpool dishsoap dispenser, no Whirlpool dish washer.
Sony chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only sony buttons on their stereos. No Sony buttons, no Sony radio.
See how ridiculous your argument is? Apple creates the entire product the same way that these other companies do. Because Apple also happens to compete in a market that is largely comprised of multiple vendors each contributing a small part in a piecemeal approach to any given technological solution does not mean they are required to do so under any law as you're implying... be it legal or ethical.
"It is a monopoly now - because Apple currently has a majority of the mp3 player market share, and a 100% monopoly on music encoded in an Apple DRM format."
Keep in mind... its not illegal to be a monopoly. Its illegal to use your monopoly illegally. Apple is not doing anything that excludes competitors to enter into the market. Microsoft's spotty history is rife with this sort of behavior throughout its history. They didn't achieve their monopoly legally... and they certainly haven't maintained it legally. Apple on the other hand achieved their monopoly in the market through hard work and innovation. They are maintaining it by doing the same repeatedly.... over and over again.
"They are also actively discouraging 3rd parties from interfacing with their hardware and software (real player)."
And there's nothing illegal or unethical about that.
"Thus, they are using their monopoly advantage to exclude competition in the market of players that can play AAC/DRM formatted music."
No, any company can use the AAC codec and can attach DRM to the fo
So if the anti-trust suit had never happend this would have been perfectly acceptable to "higher-level business persons"?
The quote says more than I think they intended.
-Coach
"Never upset a goalie, getting hit with a blocker is an unpleasent experience - facemask or not." -Me
How you spend your money is the most important moral decision you will ever make. Every time you reach in your wallet you can make the decision to make the world better or worse. Hundreds of moral decisions every day multiplied by billions of people, the most powerful force for change in the world is in your pocket. Use it.
evil is as evil does
Uh, my Lyra works just like a USB memory stick and requires no extra drivers. That this player requires drivers to "update its index" smacks of laziness on the part of the developers.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Why do people keep comparing Microsoft's practices of monopolistic abuse to Apple's? To abuse a monopoly, you have to have it first. And no, Apple has a monopoly of Apple's products argument does not count.
*Shake head*
Seesh! You'd think reading this over and over, even a stupid person will learn something.