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."
Possible responses from the judge:
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
There's nothing Microsoft could have done. Those low level interns practically run the company.
Somewhere deep in the heart of Redmond.... "Damn those new MBA graduate students! Don't know there head from their @#$hole. Looks like we need to re-evaluate our initial MS obscure wording 101 course"
Civilization, the death of dreams.
Can't get any lower than scapegoat, right?
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?
I miss the good old days at Microsoft. When we used to just do whatever the hell we wanted, and would write a cheque for the consequences later. :)
My girlfriend got an iRiver for her birthday. She's been happily ripping her 2000+ CD collection (all original, bought and paid for) and putting the songs on it. I asked her the other day if she had to install any special drivers or if the Mp3 player was just a normal USB storage device. Apparently it is "kinda" standard. You can drag an Mp3 off the iRiver onto a machine that has not had special iRiver drivers installed and you'll be able to play it.. but you can't drag any old Mp3 file off the computer and onto the iRiver and expect it to play. You can transport Mp3s like that but you need the iRiver drivers to update the index file. Sigh. Why can't the iRiver extract the song name and artist from the ID3 tags in the Mp3? Why can't it just use the freakin' filesystem instead of using its own index? At least it's better than an iPod.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It was one of those lower level, chair throwing, teeth grinding employees!!
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.
lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement...and apparently been living the past 5 years without a tv.....or a newspaper.....or interpersonal contact.......in a box....wearing earmuffs......buried in a 12 foot crater on the other side of mars.
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 at all. The point of the article is, Microsoft, because of past abuses, currently (until 2007) has more restrictions against them than most companies. Something like this:
The disputed plan, part of a marketing campaign known as "easy start," would have affected portable music devices that compete with Apple Computer Inc.'s popular iPod. It would have precluded makers of those devices from distributing to consumers music software other than Microsoft's own Windows Media Player, in exchange for Microsoft-supplied CDs.
is a violation of their punishment - much like if a person on parole can't hang out w/ convicted felons, but a regular person can
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
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?
FTA: "Microsoft abandoned the idea after a competitor protested."
How many questionable actions have slipped through because the competitors have been strong-armed (due to business relations with MS) or bought off?
This happens to be an area where MS has valid competition who have a large interest in making sure MS doesn't leverage their OS dominance... what happens in areas where the competition doesn't have the legal resources to monitor MS & to file complaints?
Not to bash MS, but really now... Gates & co are making a good case for the idea that they need to be monitored past 2007, and that perhaps the previous settlement wasn't enough.
The fact of the matter is that whether it was Gates or Ballmer or some new lackey, they were acting in official capacity as an employee of MS. It is the responsibility of those in charge to make sure no one in the organization could take illegal action. And should the court take action (which the judge said she won't), the execs at MS should be held liable by their shareholders.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well, they would say that, woudn't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies
I am a service tech with Siemens on the Redmond Microsoft campus. We do all of their desktop support so I see A LOT of the normal day to day happenings that go on around this place. Ever since I've been here, all I've seen are people doing everything they can to make the most feature-filled, least buggy, most compatible software they can. I know for certain that the team working on Microsoft Operations Manager has in the last week broken several barriers that they were working on.
My point is that Microsoft is not the immense evil company that they are made out to be. The people that work here are not trying to rip you off. They are not sabotaging their software. They take pride in thier work. We have copies of different linux builds lying around and some people even use Macs here. Seeing the way things work here, when Balmer says he has not thrown a chair, I believe him. Every last employee and most vendors here have IMMENSE amounts of freedom in their jobs. Microsoft hires people that present an air of trustworthyness. They want to be able to hire people, assign them a task, and be confident that the person they hired will be able to complete the task in the most efficient and responsible way possible.
In reference to this article that obviously did not happen. Somebody was entrusted with a certain amount of authority and they misused it. Please realize that Microsoft as a company is not some huge evil organization out to rape your wallets. They are regular people who want to, like anyone else, do the best job they can.
IANAL, etc.
Why not:
Anti-Virus
Anti-Spyware
Firewall
The typical statements are:
1) Anti-spware; there is just no clear leader in the market
2) Firewall; its not full fledge product
3) A/V not sure what the rational is here. There are market leaders and its going to be a full fledge product.
The fundamental problem is that Microsoft really has lost the ability to compete on merits of software. I think that many of their current policies may expose them to far more dangerous antitrust litigation in the future including all those you just mentioned. IANAL though.
I think that the changes in SP2 regarding better protection against ActiveX controls could have bit into the antispyware market, but that is quite defensible in terms of improving one's product. That seems to me to be clearly on the right side of the line. However, bundling antispyware solutions with Windows (via WIndows Update) seems to be questionable at best. Personal firewalls are another area where there is good question (though Microsoft's personal firewall isn't that great of a product).
In both of these cases, however, it could be argued (unsuccessfully, I think) that because most of this software is given away as a loss leader or integrated into antivirus software, that there is no such thing as a personal firewall or antispyware market. This might be sufficient to handle such complaints (remember that the appeals court found that the DoJ had not made a case that there was such a thing as a web browser market and hence overturned part of the judgement against Microsoft on these grounds). But I don't know. If there is a dispute about whether a market exists, I would expect that to be an issue of fact and a matter for a jury. If I were Microsoft, I would not want to allow for a jury trial in such a case.
None of these arguments work in the antivirus area. And it is quite possible that this is an area that Microsoft is going to get sucked into quite to their detriment.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You're comparing apples to oranges. From the article:
A proper comparison would be to note that Apple requires Apple to bundle iTunes with sales of the iPod and other devices Apple sells. Which, I suppose, they do.... since it's all one company. But this is hardly your point.
Your confusion is over the content offered on iTunes. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with content. Would you care to point out where content providers are required to enter an exclusive contract with Apple to make that content only available via iTunes? Or perhapse where the Judge found objections to the Windows Media format?
I used to work at Microsoft. I started out as a temp and was eventually hired full time. I have worked in PSS, and apprenticed in other departments such as testing. I as also deeply involved in many competitive discussions regarding Linux, etc. Indeed, over two years after I quit, I am still seeing the effects of suggestions I made to high-level competitive managers while I worked there.
Pretty much every thing you say is true. To a point. It is true that Microsoft is a place where one can generally have a lot of freedom on how you do your job and you only find out once a year that the management thinks several of your most important contributions were wastes of time (a more common complaint than you might think), and that in general, it was a fairly satisfying place to work. It is true that people take a lot of pride in their work, and that most of the people there, especially those in product development, are primarily interested in making quality software, though whether they succeed or not is another question.
The problem, however, is that there is also an odd sense of mean-spiritedness which exists as a hidden undercurrent at the company. It does not come out in every employee, and I think that the GM of my department through most of the time I was there was probably the least mean-spirited guy I have enver seen in any company, but it is a part of the corporate culture. You would not believe how many Microsoft employees might ordinarily vode democrat but voted to elect Sen. Gordon simply because Cantwell was coming from a competing company (Real Networks). Never mind the fact that she might actually understand the industry. One guy even told me that he could not in good conscience vote to elect an executive from a competitor to public office. And you would not beleive the flack I got because before I was hired, I had migrated my parents to a Linux desktop and did not want to bring them back into the fold of Microsoft software (yes they still run Linux, and no they are not nerds or techies).
Similarly, the level of mean-spiritedness I watched seemed to go up as one ascended the management chain though there were plenty of exceptions. I knew several people who ended up in GM positions who really were great people to work for and with, and were entirely procompetitive. Sadly I also saw many more people who were fundamentally meanspirited (even if they did not at first appear this way) who were promoted as well.
Now, I was not ill-informed as to the nature of this aspect of Microsoft corporate culture when I was hired. I had read essentially all of the court documents both regarding Caldera v. Microsoft and USDoJ v. Microsoft. And I largely accepted the employement at first due to the fact that I did not have another job lined up when my term came to an end. In other words, it was clear to me that a large percentage of senior execs (including Gates and Ballmer) were of this category of employees, and that this was a large part of what catylized this attitude in the company.
During my time at Microsoft, I worked tirelessly to improve Microsoft software and business practices. My contributions were nearly all procompetitive. Among ideas first floated by me:
1) One has to stop thinking of Exchange and Sendmail as competitors (as a result of this email, a POP3 server was added to Windows Server 2003).
2) If you are going to Linuxworld, at least take the one product (SFU) that Linux guys might find interesting.
3) SFU should ship with the operating system.
4) If you can't provide SSH, at least provide a telnet server which uses Kerberos to encrypt the session (don't know the status on this one, but I believe it may be forthcoming)
I don't know where my other suggestions so I will not mention them here. However, I will say that I had suggested a very aggressive competitive approach aimed at materially reducing the number of safe markets for Linux and FreeBSD. I would not be surprised if Microsoft continues to impliment other suggestions I made.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."
Well, now we know the ethnicity of the low-level intern.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I still haven't seen anyone with an iPod, but I've had a Neuros and I know someone with an Archos. Unless you're being paid to publicize that one company's antiquated product (fuckin' A, it can't even play modern codecs like Vorbis), then there's no reason to shill for it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"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
the radio/button analogy is stupid. a closer analogy is sony tvs letting u only play movies from the sony label or home movies, not from anyone else. the majority of the rest of your arguments are blind faith. if you own shares, i can understand your defense. otherwise, it makes no sense to religion out of a company.
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
> 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.
This points out well why Microsoft can't be trusted in these anti-trust settlements. Microsoft's view is that proposals like this are only a problem in that they violate the anti-trust settlement terms. In reality, they are a problem in that they violate the intent of the anti-trust laws.
MS expects its employees to work tirelessly to skirt the edge of the anti-trust laws, and build up its defacto monopoly. They can't accept into the corporate culture that attempting to force use of MS software through restrictive licensing agreements is not an acceptable business practice, -even if- you can do it without contravening the strict letter of the law.
Frm the referenced article: 'The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."'
I would not describe it as a "chink"; I would describe it as a gap in which Microsoft is unwilling to comply with any settlement agreement to any greater degree than they can be compelled to by threat of force.
'"This is an issue that Microsoft is concerned showed up," Rule said. He added that Microsoft regrets the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers and that the company was "looking at it to make sure this is a lesson learned."'
Unfortunately, from Microsoft's point of view, the lesson they seem to want to impress on the employees is, "thou shalt not get caught", where the court wants them to learn to alter their business practices to prohibit these kinds of restrictive agreements.
You know, when you're new to it all and shy about asking and you kind of hedge your bets.
"Ha ha ha. No, I'm just kidding."
"...unless you think it's a good idea, that is."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.