Slashdot Mirror
South Korea Fines Microsoft $32 Million
laffer1 writes "South Korea has fined Microsoft $32 million and ordered two new versions of Windows be made. The first version will be stripped of Windows Media Player and MSN IM software and the second must include links to competitors."
Is it because their IM was tied to windows (tied in what way ,
networking protocol, hidden lockouts for non windows systems or
only ran on windows?) , or because they bundled this and media
player with windows?
Either way I can't help wondering if this is a good thing since
if Suse or Ubunto or some other linux dist suddenly becomes popular
overnight, will they get nailed for bundling 100s of apps with it?
Will a judge know (or care) of the difference between open source
and MS when it comes to bundling freeware in a distribution?
starting to think ???
this is just the cheapest campaign that microsoft can get. advertisement is the proper english word for it.
quite millions of people see news about it on cnn and other tv/news channels, pretty many thousand slashdotters read the article, for 32 millions this is a damn bargain.
and if they lose the appealing case too, its addition just another free commercial which be banging on the big bell of news channels.
write: oh we are in court
think: free advertisement & commercials all over the world.
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
This is more bad news. I dread the day when there will be 50 different versions of Windows out there. Some will have MP, some will have IM, some will have IE ... what's a developer to do? We will be forced to bundle all of these service-level applications with our installer. The poor user will end up with 5 different browsers, instant messengers, media players, constantly answering the "Firefox is not your default browser" questions. This type of decision, in my opinion, is very bad for the industry, and especially bad for the end users.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
The problem was once that these things came bundled with windows. That's not a problem anymore. The problem now is that the average person sees these apps as the primary app for that task. When they think email they don't think Eudora..they think Outlook. That's not going to change even if they unbundle things now and include links to competitors. The customer will simply say "Yeah...that's a link to realplayer, but where's windows media player?"
That battle has been lost. Instead of concentrating on unbundling, these governments should focus on breaking the perception that email means outlook, that web browsing means IE, etc. Bundling was a way to thrust these apps to the forefront and choke the competition. That's been done. Unbundling now will just make the customer go through extra steps to get the same software back again.
Concerning RealPlayer, when it was suggested that Microsoft should add it to Windows, Microsoft said that people could easily download it, so bundling it with Windows was unnecessary and out of the question.
Now that WMP and Messenger are to be removed, suddenly downloading a media player is such a terrible handicap!
When it was suggested that Sun's JRE should be bundled with Windows, Microsoft asked why Sun should get a free ride on Windows, and was against adding third-party software to Windows.
The 'free ride' of bundling obviously does make a big difference. Just because Microsoft owns the operating system, this doesn't mean that it should be allowed to bundle whatever it likes.
What company is going to suffer as Microsoft has to bundle another product with Windows to entice people to upgrade? Maybe a PhotoShop clone is to be bundled with Vista's successor?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
So, when the Toyota of the desktop computing world finially is ready to step it up they will slowly be able to nick away at M$...
It already has. It's called Apple.
Whoever it is, forcing links to be placed to "sites that allow one to download competiting versions of such software" is ridiculous. This is basically forcing a business to advertise for its competitors - it makes no logical sense!
Windows is the defacto operating system for many people. Microsoft placing these pieces of software into the Operating System install (and making them very difficult to remove by end users) gives them an unfair advantage. I am sick of the number of people who use MSN - because it came with windows is invariably the response ditto for WMP (but the use of WMP by people who I want to IM does not affect me, so I care a little less about this) this means that if I want to IM these people and cannot convince them to use a better/different protocol - I too have to use a MSN compatible program etal (sometimes the protocols change and I end up lagging behind, although this has not happened for quite some time). Forcing Microsoft to link to alternatives (for the version that has WMP and MSNIM installed) is certainly not rediculous, the consumer is purchasing an OPERATING SYSTEM not the associated tat that helps microsoft make even more money and build a nice little database about your uses and habits with your computer.
I have no problem if microsoft were to offer these products for free, or even offer them via Windows Update (optional software section) as people would need to make a concious decision about what program or client they wish to use and would be more likely to research, rather than swallow the spoon fed baby food that Microsoft is shoving down their throat.
Comparing a distro like Ubuntu to Microsoft in light of this ruling is just silly. Distro's are not operating systems that you are paying for per-se, they are bundles of software packages that can be found all over the net, and as others have pointed out, you get a lot of choice with most distro's. With Microsoft there is no re-packaging available to other companies so there could not be Soupysoft's Rindows made that for arguments sake packaged mplayer and google talk as its IM, while running the NT kernel and shell. If that were the case I doubt that this type of lawsuit would be as it is today.
Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
--I'm not actually after an answer!
This is basically forcing a business to advertise for its competitors - it makes no logical sense!
Actually it does. Microsoft broke the law. As part of Microsoft's punishment, it has to undo some of the harm it's law-breaking caused. Which according to the South Korean government, is that competitors were unfairly competed with, so now Microsoft has to work to undo that damage, by helping them out.
It makes perfect sense, when you take into account Microsoft is being punished here. If you follow the law, you don't have to advertise for your competitors. You break the law, you suffer the consequences.
If Microsoft were fined a mil a day they would run out of money in. . .never.
KFG
What campaign? Everybody's already using Windows. What do they possibly have to gain from a marketing campaign?
Imaging buying a new car and finding that every manufacturer has slightly different arrangments for the controls. Maybe the radio buttons are different, or the lights, or the windshield wipers. Maybe the window controls are arranged differently, or the cruise control. How would you cope with that? Could consumers figure out how to drive if 90% of the cars on the lot didn't have exactly the same interface?
I don't mind Microsoft bundling stuff with their operating system, but is it really too much to ask that they allow users to be able to not install the things they bundle with their operating system?