Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Faces Korean Deadline
nmccart wrote to mention an article on the Yahoo! news service stating that South Korea has leveled a deadline at Microsoft. The deadline is the newest addition to that country's anti-trust ruling against the OS maker."South Korea's antitrust regulator has given Microsoft Corp. the deadline of Aug. 24 to comply with a landmark ruling ordering the world's largest software maker to unbundle some of its products from its Windows computer operating system and pay fines. On Friday afternoon, the Fair Trade Commission said it has sent documents on the punitive sanctions to Microsoft, which was ruled last December to have violated the nation's fair trade laws by tieing its instant messenger, audio, and video software to Windows. The commission also confirmed its order that Microsoft pay 32.4 billion won (US$33.5 million) in the December ruling on the U.S. software giant's unfair business practices."
what is the cost of changes to OS to South Korean revenue ratio looking like.
Stiffer penalties are needed. Seriously, given the amount of money Microsoft has right now, 33.5 million is not a serious deterrence to bad behavior. While I have not completely thought out the math, that's the equivalent of fining me a couple of dollars for wrong doing.
I wonder if South Korea will be as soft and in-effectual as the EU. Me thinks not.
I wonder if Microsoft considers South Korea a "real" country, or just some some pathetic 2nd-world country, only on the map because of the antics of its neighbors to the north, trying to flex muscles it doesn't have.
"Unbundle messenger... Uh-huh... Suuuuuuure we will. Tell ya what... Go home and pretend we never had this little chat, and we won't 'stratify' our market to make all Microsoft products cost a few million dollars each in your backwater little former US landmine disposal yard".
It would hurt Microsoft a lot to pull out of the EU. Pulling out of South Korea, though? Somehow that doesn't strike me as one of their cash-cow sales regions.
In South Korea, only old people use Windows.
and to ship an OS without them
It has nothing to do with whether a browser is shipped with their O/S or not. It's to do with deep facilities integration, which results in the machine being largely inoperative if the native browser is replaced with another.
Microsoft could easily have avoided this if they wished, by making the integration done through a separate module which can be used by 3rd party browsers too. They chose not to do so.
i hope you were joking.
south korea has a population of 48 million, the 12th highest gdp in the world & high economic growth rates. they also have a lot of technology, which ms would like to run windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
Web Design
I get what some people are saying about out-of-the-box functionality, it does seem strange to expect an OS not to ship with default apps to provide standard functionality for e.g. media playing and IM. Are they going to apply the same principles to Mas OS and Linux?
Maybe what they should be doing is making Microsoft include alternatives, or even just a link to a web site where people can do a simple process to install and set as default alternative apps for standard functions. Click here to make Mozilla Firefox your default browser. Okay, I'm having trouble seeing it, but it does seem more sensible than all this unbundling of standard functionality.
Oh no... it's the future.
BTW, You forgot Poland.
In South Korea, only old people sue Microsoft... except in Nebraska!
IN DEMOCRATIC KOREA, government sue YOU!
I for one welcome our new Microsoft sueing overlords.... in Japan!^H^H^H^H^H^HSouth Korea!
In other news, it's raining chairs at Redmond.
1) Sue Microsoft
2) ???
3) Profit!
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Exactly, which is why Dell, HP, Lenovo, or whoever should be able to choose which browser, IM player, and media player they install on the complete systems they sell, and not be forced by the OS/kernel maker to include one and pay a penalty even if they don't want it.
Microsoft doesn't sell computers, it sells operating systems and application software. Computer makers should be able to choose which components, if any, they want to buy from Microsoft.
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Microsoft forced to unbundle Explorer from it's Operating System in compliance with international Trade Laws.
I don't see why microsoft shouldn't bundle thier stuff? What next, none of the security because Norton don't like it? Or maybee they shouldn't be allowed to include themems, because of WindowBlinds? Madness.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I'm sorry but i think we are forgetting a few key things here.
Microsoft is the maker of the software, they made it the way they wanted, and they allowed other companies to build software for it.
Why then should they be forced to not bundle their own software on it? They own the software, not the korean government.
If they want to make it more convenient for people without internet to use their computers then there should be absolutely no problem with that, they have the right to.
It would hurt Microsoft a lot to pull out of the EU. Pulling out of South Korea, though? Somehow that doesn't strike me as one of their cash-cow sales regions.
I'll bite...you see, with the US & China tied as #1 for most internet users, South Korea comes in right behind them. #4 is so far below, there isn't much reason to even consider it.
I'm certain MS AND South Korea both have a more accurate view of the world market than you an all the others who joke about how much South Korea matters in this example.
Next, consider just who is actually building all those Dell and HP branded desktops, notebooks and displays (not where, but whom) - then factor in the effect of bundling and how the real expense is the liscense for each unit. Putting a crimp in that business model is like a cats tail under gramma's rocker...only a matter of time before everyone hears the yeowll and knows something is amiss.
Point is - South Korea is not to be taken lightly in this matter. South Korea knows it and MS knows it. I, for one, hope MS both gets smacked silly and learns a lesson. Somehow, tho, I doubt MS will ever learn.
And also in the news, Microsoft is to create another "special" version of Windows to address South Korean antitrust concerns. This "special" version will be given a lobotomy and ride the short bus to school much like the European "Windows N" AKA "Windows Reduced Media Edition".
Other third party applications include very advanced technology called an "uninstaller" and have done so for years. This technology is so advanced that Microsoft as of yet is completely unable to replicate it or integrate it in to their Windows OS.
Uninstaller technology would give users and OEMs a choice of which software applications are installed with Windows. When asked to comment head of Microsoft marketing MS. Bob stated "We firmly believe that users do not need this functionality, any kind of choice is too complicated. Everyone should just use the software we provide them and depend on us." The interview was interruped by the defening sound of a compeditor getting crushed.
Microsoft should just pull out of Korea before it's too late.
There would be a lot fewer problems.
Hell, more Koreans should just pull out before it's too late.
There would be a lot fewer Koreans.
No reason to lie.
All Microsoft has to do to avoid antitrust in Korea is to include a Starcraft-clone with every copy of Windows.
Why not make sure that these bundled apps are not a part of the vendor lock-in? A good media player included with the OS? Sure, but make the video/audio formats open.
Dvorak on Doomtech
Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.
Honestly, the definition needs to be redifined. What Linux, Apple and Microsoft is selling (or giving away for free) is not just an OS, but a complete package. Would anyone even bother buying an OS that doesn't come with a media player, a internet browser, or internet messenger in nowadays?
I understand that because of Microsoft's monopoly, it's gives then an unfair advantage of deploying any software they want, but browser, IM, media player are such core software in today's society, I dare you find a modern OS that doesn't have all of them in it. It's not like they're PREVENTING you from installing another software to replace it. By restricting one company from putting these software in, but allowing everyone else to do it, in my opinion, is what's unfair. If they forced every OS to not include a browser, media player, and IM client, I can be more content with that decision.
Just my rant and 2 cents.
HD Trailers
South Korea is a developed country with 50 million citizens, if that answers your question.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Right, because if there's one thing that MS does really well, is build good hardware. If they want to do that, fine, that's called a free market.
Your first sentence describes what they're already doing, and is what all the bundling lawsuits are about. As for licensing, it's a pretty incestuous relationship, but ultimately Microsoft needs the boxmakers more than the boxmakers need Microsoft. The volume licenses MS sells to the boxmakers are a goldmine for the company that they wouldn't want to mess with. So Dell et al. could just decline the "Dell Windows" licensing fee, still buy the MS volume licenses, and refer to systems sold with 'a well-known operating system that runs the majority of today's applications', and most consumers wouldn't even notice that it didn't say Windows. For corporate customers, the Dell sales rep tells you what version OS you're getting over the phone. Next?
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Not that im a fan of microsoft, but the last time i looked i was able to run altenative IM clients or browswers. I wasnt forced to use theirs. Sure it was there taking up space, but it didnt hurt me a bit.
Now, once they start hindering 3rd party options ( again ), then we have a issue...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
South Korea comes in right behind them. #4 is so far below, there isn't much reason to even consider it.
:-p). The whole media player discussion I think is also bull - I think you'll find that people use QT more than they use WMP, yet Apple is selling _their_ computers with it, and it's pretty integrated in their system (I don't mind it, so no pun intended).
;) )
Yes, but out of all the people in SK using MS, how many of them have _legal_ installations of their software?
While China and other Asian countries are very advanced in the use of computers and Internet technology (and if they're not advanced they have the numbers to make it count), how many are legal?
If the market in SK would have, say 1mil customers (totally random number), and out of those only 200k have legal copies, it doesn't weight so heavy on MS...
Just a thought..
I do agree tho that this whole going-after-MS crap is beginning to be ridiculous. IM client??? They're not even in the top 2 companies of IM! Don't want IE? Use something else? God knows people are, and it's not like you're paying for IE (that would probably be a crime
Now if they would bundle Office with Windows, that's where it'd be wrong...but all these small components...would you buy and OS that comes with a kernel only? (And yes, I use gentoo too
A total stripping just wouldn't be possible because I find many of the same DLLs are used by the competing programs, for example Winamp though having it's own content playing files, uses the IE files (if I remember correctly) to display stuff in the built in mini-browser (something I never understood). Developers have come to rely on these built in components, last thing Windows needs is dependency hell that you get sometimes with the *nixs.
I know for a fact that Compaq used the OPK, because recently when reimaging a customers machine after a hard drive crash, the OPK menu came up when that machine booted up, Compaq forgot to press the seal button before they sent the image off to mass production.
I'll bite...you see, with the US & China tied as #1 for most internet users
Which means... What, exactly?
You can get on the internet without Windows - In fact, South Korea REQUIRES government computers to run open source software (ie, Linux), with the business and academic communities resultingly all-but-forced to do the same if they want to get anything done.
So, I repeat my original point - The South Korean market means very little to Microsoft at the moment. While you could argue that Microsoft currently has a lot of room for growth there, at the same time it counts as one of those MS-hostile places for which MS came up with "Starter Edition" in a sad attempt to increase market penetration for no real short-term gain.
Would MS prefer to have the option of selling in South Korea open to them? Sure... Burning bridges very rarely helps make money. But will MS grant more concessions to SK (or any at all) than they did to the EU? No way in Hell.
As an aside, Microsoft already has a totally unbundled OS available - XP Embedded. Depending on your build options, you can produce something very similar to XP Pro, or something so stripped down as to "unbundle" even those nasty anticompetitive drivers Microsoft uses to "favor" to various hardware vendors (the bastards, making my NIC work right out of the box, without needing a CD or a download or compiling a module! How dare they?). And IIRC, the per-device license comes out to less than XP pro (but more than XP home for OEMs?), and explicitly allows (by necessity) for redistribution. But then, source code doesn't count as opening their formats, and removing WMP doesn't count as removing WMP, so I don't know why any governments would consider that option...
Every Linux distribution I know of ships with the ability to install any of several different media players, or office suites. Linux has inherent choice built in.
not be forced by the OS/kernel maker to include one and pay a penalty even if they don't want it
I haven't RTFA, but how is MS penalising computer makers for including 3rd party IM programs, media players, etc? Only this month I set up a laptop (Sony I think) which included bundled copies of Yahoo Messenger and RealPlayer alongside Windows Messenger and Windows Media Player. Did Sony have to pay some terrible price to be able to do this?
Surely a manufacturer's freedom to bundle Yahoo Messenger with their system != Microsoft being forced to remove Windows Messenger from their OS.
I'm not a buisness expert, but can't you uninstall anything the hell you want from windows ('cept IE, admittedly) and make an image from that disk, and image it to 50,000+ PC's you sell? Also, can you put firefox on that 1st pc, and make it the default before you make the image? They do it with Symantec/Norton Security Suite all the time. And, can't Dell write a program to present the user with choices of defaults to use? "Would you like to use Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Netscape as your default browser?" "AIM or Windows/MSN messenger or Yahoo! Messenger... or Trillian or ICQ or IRC...?"
That would be presenting the user with Too Many Choices(tm). 99% of the time, if you don't know how to install Firefox and make it the default (it freakin' asks you!), or change the default e-mail program to thunderbird (it asks!), then you don't care. And, the 1 percent that's suing only is suing because they know they don't want it, and know how to get rid of it. But they see $$. I have proof of this, too. How much other stuff does OS X stuff in to an operating system? Safari. iChat, iTunes, iWeb, f**king DVD authoring. MS doesn't include half that stuff, and the Mac folks see iLife as a feature. You have to feel sorry for Microsoft.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
If boxmakers have 'financial incentives' to keep WMP and not install others, they are paying a penalty if they do so anyway and forego the incentives.
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Did you know that on OSX if you don't like Safari you can uninstall it? And with virtually all Linux distributions you can uninstall the included media player, chat client and browser if you want. Microsft has fixed their OS so that these programs can't be uninstalled. That's what makes it anti-competitive. Anti-competitive = monopoly (or at least an attempt at one). You're the one who isn't getting it.
Btw, I'm one of many people who doesn't chat so a chat client is most certainly not a fundamental part of the computer experience.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players."
In that case surely a better angle of attack would be to force MS to stop their shady business practices. Even if they were forced to unbundle some stuff from Windows, they could just offer 'financial incentives' to PC makers who put it all back again.
they're going to open the source? great news!!! ;p
Web Design
I'm rather surprised too. I live in the uk and am making a fair statement about our 'EU Overlords' pathetic efficiency.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
Hows that any different to the US, or Europe?
Koreas not some backwoods little peasant country. Its as advanced as Japan and the USA and has a fairly decent western standard living style.
4th highest GDP. Mull it over man.
Regardless, when a country fines a company like microsoft 40 million odd dollars, it doesnt actually have a choice not to pay it. The court has the perogative to just *take* it, being that its a fine and all.
If you trade in a country, you follow its laws or face fines , jails or exile.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
"and instructions about how to assemble a version of XP from copies of these bytes"
You will never see MS release the source to Windows. Ever.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Yes, but it doesn't uninstall WebKit, does it? Likewise, you can uninstall IE through "Add/Remove Windows Components," or by ACL, but people still bitch because it leaves the trident rendering engine.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.
... It's not like they're PREVENTING you from installing another software to replace it. ...
... By restricting one company from putting these software in, but allowing everyone else to do it, in my opinion, is what's unfair ...
Forget it. Microsoft has been in court for monopolistic business practices for as long as I can remember. They wrote the book on software bundling and how to use it to destroy the competition. Microsoft continues to do this, despite all of the lawsuites and the fines they've had to pay, simply because they've always gained more from this practice than they've ever lost because of it. As long as they remain the dominant player in the market and continue to do things this way, we can expect to see them as permanent fixtures in courts around the world. The courts are only doing what they're meant to do, but compared to Microsoft's profits, the fines involved will always be inadequate, even though they may amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Honestly, the definition needs to be redifined. What Linux, Apple and Microsoft is selling (or giving away for free) is not just an OS, but a complete package. Would anyone even bother buying an OS that doesn't come with a media player, a internet browser, or internet messenger in nowadays?
Oh, so now we should view Microsoft's bundling practices as normal?? FYI: those technologies were all developed by other people and companies, and now what do they have to show for it? For instance, did Netscape deserve to die just because the folks at Microsoft decided Windows should come with a pre-installed, competitive, native browser? You would think differently if Netscape had been your baby. There are probably lots of folks out there who are still too scared to market their ideas for fear that Microsoft might "pull a Netscape" on them.
To be fair, one could argue that for a manufacturer to produce an operating system -- today or even ten years ago -- without some kind of a browser to start with would in effect cripple it. However, if Microsoft had stopped doing any major development work on their bundled version of Internet Explorer, for example by leaving it simple (HTML 2.0-4.01 compatible), modular, as secure as possible, and making it just good enough to allow the user to go out and download a proper replacement (which might be better version of Internet Explorer), then I don't think anybody would have complained. The problem is that they went out of their way to make their bundled browser the "Best browser in the world" (haw), with the specific intent to kill Netscape and thereby strengthen their market position.
Comparing Microsoft's bundling practices to a Linux distribution is ridiculous. Commercial Linux distributions are collections free software packages compiled almost exclusively for the benefit of the user, while Microsoft bundles its software together with Windows almost exclusively for its own benefit, mostly by screwing the competition.
Of course not. If that were the case, Firefox would not be the #2 browser. But it is the reason why the vast majority of Windows users never go looking for an alternative browser or media player or whatever. This is what killed Netscape. This is what stifles innovation.
Nobody ever said Microsoft should not be allowed to make browsers, media players, chat software, etc. for their own operating systems, or even give these packages away for free. The point is that it's unfair for them to include this software pre-installed with Windows. When they do that, the average user is simply very unlikely to ever go looking for any alternatives. That's the only reason why crap software products like Internet Explorer and Outlook are still the perennial favorites.
And while we're
Thirty-five million dollars, eh? Wow, what a horrendous penalty. That'll throw the fear of God into Gates and Ballmer for sure. No doubt about it, their days are numbered.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I agree completely - well, mostly :)
The one thing I do disagree with though (at least in part) is:
Of course not. If that were the case, Firefox would not be the #2 browser. But it is the reason why the vast majority of Windows users never go looking for an alternative browser or media player or whatever. This is what killed Netscape.
To be fair, Netscape 4 was a dogs dinner of a browser, and IE 4 was actually distinctly better. It stills pains me to say that though.
(not an MS fanboy, actually an Apple fanboy if anything)
The best is the enemy of the good
Wikipedia estimates South Korea's 2005 GDP at slightly over $1 trillion (US). No, Microsoft can't buy it with a month's worth of profits.
e a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Kor
Think about this. North Korea is not very wealthy, but they're capable of wiping Seoul off the map. If Microsoft was serious about giving a "screw you" to Korea, they'd buy NK and tell Kim Jong-il to fire at will.
Developers have come to rely on these built in components
You have just defined Microsoft's illegal tactic for abusing it's monopoly in one area to impose a monoploy in these other areas and prohibiting anyone else from competing. Software from various other companies come to *RELY* on the Internet Explorer components being built in and have no reason to support Firefox or anything else (which most likely is not present anyway) as an alternative. Exactly how other company's sofware is hijacked to force people to use the IE components and only the IE components.
And if some company wants to integrate meda playbay, they come to *RELY* on the Windows Media components *WHICH CANNOT BE REMOVED*. So they rely on that and do not program in support for any competing media player which is most likely not present. So therefore all of the media files wind up being WMAs and MWVs. And the user is forced to use the Windows version and effectively prohibited from using any other.
And the same goes for any program which integrates with Windows Instant Messenger. Why would some company include support for any other messenger that most likely is not present?
You can also turn off completely the competing Microsoft program by unselecting "Enable Access to this program."
I'd have to double check, but I'm virtually 100% sure that is false. That setting only "hides" it. It still gets called up when any other program calls up integrated media or whatever component it is. Microsoft does NOT permit these calls to be blocked or directed to the user's chosen alternative. Even if you "disable" the Microsoft component you're still FORCED to use it in conjuction with other software.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Hmm do I smell Mod abuse, surely my parent comment is informative or inciteful refering to an earlier story on slashdot about the South Korean government mandating that a city in South Korea use Linux.
/ 2006/01/21/2003290105
Isn't it pretty obvious that both storys indicate a determination on the part of the South Koreans to weaken the grip of microsoft on thier infrastructure. Either they are looking for a cheaper deal with Microsoft or they really do want an IT infrastructure which isn't dependant on paying Microsoft.
Companies such as Samsung are already big players in the hardware Market place. With countrys such as japan threatening to levy import tarrifs of 27.2%
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives
Strengthening South Korea's posistion in the software market surely makes a lot of sense for South Korea.
If South Koreans can buy domestically produced hardware at a significantly lower price than the rest of the world then widespread use of a free alternative operating system increases the competitive advantage of low priced quality hardware.
It also makes sense that if your going to use windows then push for the lowest price you can surely?
Karma generally works on slashdot so hopefully whoever metamoderates my previous post will see it wasn't the work of a troll and score it fairly.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
If I controlled MS, I'd stop releasing software in South Korea. MS has enough other massive global markets to cut the profit from South Korea. Don't like my software? Fine, I won't sell it to you. Also, after my obligations to XP and 2003 are done for support contracts, I will stop supporting software in any form, including tech support, licensing, and security patches. Oooh you like the new version of Office? Too bad, so sad. That being said, I don't see what the problem with them including stuff with their OS is. Nothing at all prevents you from installing additional software! The included software is CRAP and should be easy to market around. OEMs are already free to bundle additional software with Windows, including setting them as the default applications...
Deal with Kim Jong-il? Does Microsoft trust him not to launch one at Redmond after the check clears? If he's crazy enough to nuke South Korea, why wouldn't he be crazy enough to nuke the US?
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
Even if you "disable" the Microsoft component you're still FORCED to use it in conjuction with other software.
Nobody is forcing the developers to use that components, they use it by choice, and nobody is forcing the user to use those programs either. Nothing is being forced, people go for the path of least resistance, Microsoft provides that path.
In South Korea...only Microsoft faces deadlines!
R.
Microsoft enjoys being a relitive monopoly for PC OSes... realize that only two product lines support the entire company... Office products and OS products! Everything else they do is for the sake of taking away business from other people's companies and costs their shareholders profit!
Frankly, the whole bundling thing is nonsense though. What really needs to happen is what the EU is trying to do... take away the secret advantages they keep between products for themselves. The countries really need to take the state of Mass idea and accept only published specs for their software protocols like any other contract. That has the function of eliminating MS as a competitior unless they adopt standards like everyone else's. Any real "punishement" of microsoft has to also address OEM agreements, buying competitors to kill them, and remove that big pile of cash [even if it just is forced to be paid to stockholders] so they have to act, not pay their way out of trouble.
Anyway, the very same controversy is playing out today as the US and the EU dispute the permissibility of GM-crops bans.
For YEARS Microsoft provided a componentized browser that 3rd parties could use when building their software while the competition (Netscape) did not. This is why AOL continued to use IE within their software even AFTER they bought Netscape. Netscape was never componentized the way IE was. I don't know about firefox, but the 3rd party dependencies on IE (like Quicken, to name another direct competitor to Microsoft) were created well before anyone else had the foresight to create a browser that could be embedded in any application.
Thanks you made me laugh, sad thou its the sweetest thing you have said this year.
why thou...
Placze do pustych scian, co za wstyd
Bylam z kims jakis czas, niewazne juz
Czuje, ze wokól mnie nie kocha nikt
Czuje, ze zawsze juz bedzie tak.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
"Computer makers should be able to choose which components, if any, they want to buy from Microsoft."
And let me tell you how it works in the real world: a lot of Windows application depend on the media and HTML rendering engines embeded in Windows, if removed and replaced with other ones, said applications will crash, malfunction or at best simply refuse to work on such a crippled OS.
Nobody tells Apple what to do with their OS. Reasoning? Because they sell their own computers, by MS leaves that choice to you? Where's the logic.
Most of the computer manifacturers already bundle their Windows installations with other media players and browsers (DELL actually sells PC-s with Firefox in Britain right now), so it's not as if they don't have the choice if they want to customize their solution.
Thing is, the vast majority of customers hate the crap the PC manifacturers plaster on top of their installs, they are far more careless in doing so compared to the bundled apps in Windows that MS develops.
Plus a modern OS is hardly just a bare core that runs threads on it. It's as a matter of fact a bundle of components working together, bringing rich experience to the people's computers. If that OS has removed parts or swapped parts, then how can it be really said it's the same OS at all?
Should we bundle our own HTML/Media components and codecs with every single damn app we develop instead of relying on the tested and proved components Windows provides?
The fate of this "special" Windows will be the same as Windows N in EU - available, but noone gives a damn about it. Why buy a broken product?
Instead of making 100 different versions of Windows, why doesn't Microsoft make Windows more modular? For example, being able to choose whether or not to install Windows Media Player, MSN Messenger, etc. I know its not hard at all to do this, as I remember in the Windows 9x installations, there were more applications you could choose to not install during the OS setup. If Microsoft can do this, stupid charges like this against them would be useless.
Everytime some goverment somewhere even dares to think about going opensource MS moves in with special deals to keep them inline.
What would happen if MS indeed decided no longer to sell to South Korea. Well apart from the question of legallity. Companies do not rule the world yet even if you seem to think so and can't actually ban people from buying their products.
Even so, say it could happen, then what would South Korea do? Well either keep its old windows. That would be bad enough. Imagine if every company every goverment that did business with South Korea needed to keep sending its office documents in the old format that South Korea can use. MS is already pissed off that consumers won't upgrade fast enough making the latest office useless as you still need to send docs in the old formats supported by Office of the last century. Imagine now if an entire country says Oh, an XP document, nice, resend in in 98 format please.
And they would have to resend the document in a format that the South Koreans understand. The real world is not the silly place you seem to think it is. If you deal with multinationals or goverments you accomadate the other EVEN if you think your the more powerfull party. In short, you will communicate with the South Korean goverment/businesses in the format they can handle.
Even worse if they went opensource. Imagine if all those businesses suddenly deciced they would only communicate in open document formats. Then it could easily spread.
It is the story of IE. Not so long ago IE was the only browser that many sites would be tested on. Use something else and a lot of sites would simply break or even refuse to load. So IE had to be used. And because everyone used IE sites only tested against IE so you had to use IE. Then something broke and IE's market share has decreased. By a fraction and yet MS response shows how scared they are of even losing 10% of a market. IE7 is going to copy everything the other browsers did because no longer can MS just rely on the fact that you need to use their browser to view site X.
MS certainly doesn't want the same thing to happen to its OS and Office markets.
No, if any country actually does ban MS from use by the goverment and large businesses then you can be sure that Bill Gates himself will be flying over to smooth things out. Just check the countless examples of MS responses to goverments considering opensource solutions.
Your view of the world suggests to me your a 12yr old windows script kiddy who idolizes Billy because he gave you free porn popups.
Maybe you will grow out of it as you learn about the real world but in the meantime get an account on myspace instead and leave slashdot to those who got a clue.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Then I checked the nickname, and surprise, it was the same guy siding with microsoft on the issue with the EU.
Whoah, you mean... I actually adopted the same stance on two very similar issues in two different topics? How DARE I show logical consistency on Slashdot?
Sorry, lost my head there, I won't do it again. Just give me another shot - I promise, next two posts on the GPL and the RIAA, I'll support emasculating evildoers who only comply with the spirit but not the letter of the GPL, and then in the next breath say we have a right to steal music and the RIAA can suck it.
Yes, Virginia, I believe the governments of the world have gone too far against Microsoft (even if the US government didn't have the balls to carry through on its threats - And no, those ideas don't contradict one another). Whether or not MS has truly reformed yet, they've adopted a MUCH more friendly attitude (Why not? IBM has started playing the good guys, with a much longer history of evil than MS has even existed). And as for abusing their "monopoly" - Have you any idea of the size of the fish involved here? Microsoft may dominate the software world, but the world will keep moving without their products. Compare that to OPEC, which openly colludes to keep oil prices and demand as high as possible; and without their product, our planet cannot naturally produce enough food to feed even half of the current human population.
Oh noes, I have to choose to manually install Firefox and not to run WMP and Messenger. But I might not HAVE ANY FUCKING HEAT because oil costs too much and that seems just fine?
Seriously, some Slashdotters need a sense of proportion.
Are you unfamiliar with anti-trust law?
It is illegal to use a monopoly in one area as a means of creating a monopoly in a second area.
Microsoft has a monopoly position and weilds monopoly power. Microsoft is not only using it's operating system monopoly to place it's media player and instant messanger onto every new computer, but it is also making them unremovable.
Microsoft is not attempting to compete in the market. They are usinging their monopoly power to change and control the market itself, to effecively exclude competition itself.
Nobody is forcing the developers to use that components
No, but Microsoft is using it's monopoly to control and change the media marketplace itself. They are FORCING their monopoly of new PCs to have their media player and for it to be unremovable. It does not matter if Realplayer is better or if anyone else's media player is better... developers almost *must* support Microsoft's media player because it's the only one on all new PCs, and there is a major disincentive to generalize their support or to specifically support any others.
nobody is forcing the user to use those programs either
Microsoft is using it's monopoly to alter the market for applciations. Essentially all new applications will use Microsoft's media player and will use and impose Microsoft's WMA and WMV formats as addressed above. Anyone who buys virtually ANY programs with media playback will be FORCED to use Microsoft's media player whether they think it is better or worse.
You are effectively saying that people are not forced to buy programs. No, of course they aren't. The issue here is that Microsoft is using it's monopoly to create a monopoly situation in those programs. A monopoly situation where people are forced to buy software imposing Mircosoft's media player and microsofts media formats, or be locked out of the market entirely.
If Microsoft have a better media player and better media formats they are perfectly welcome to EARN a monopoly position on media players and media formats. In a legitimately competitive market place Microsoft would fail miserably if they attempted to offer a madia player that does not play and save in all of the common formats. They would fail miserably if their player did not conform to some standard interface. Developers would develop for that standard interface to be able to integrate with any and all of the competing media players. Devlopers would put their audio and video files in the most general and portable formats playable on any and all media players.
people go for the path of least resistance, Microsoft provides that path.
Anti-trust law says that you cannot abuse a monopoly for the purpose of controling and reshaping the marketplace itself in order to grant yourself a new monopoly in another area. You cannot control and reshape the marketplace for that other area to impose an insurmountable handicap on other competitors. Cannot use your monopoly to carve out a single competition-free path into that new market.
Microsoft must compete fairly to win any new market. If their product is not as good then it should fail. If some one else's product is better then that other product should win. It is harmful to the marketplace and harmful to the public if a monopoly in one area is used deny genuine competition from determining the better product in the other area.
The fact that Microsoft has an operating system monopoly should not be used to prevent free market competition from determining the best media player and the best media formats.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You did raise a signifigant point about IE, though Microsoft did specifically craft the operating system to make IE and IE only embeddable like that. The OS specifically calls IE, and and does not give interfaces for other browsers to hook in their engines instead.
But to get back to the current issue:
Current media players are pretty much all designed to be embeddable. As I said, pretty much all software will use the monopoly-positioned Microsoft media player even if it is a worse player, and anyone buying commercial software will be pretty much forced into using it, and users will be pretty much forced into WMA and WMV even if it is a worse format.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Actually there is nothing in the Anti-Trust laws (at least the US ones) that legally prevent them from having to remove the components, it's if they abuse the monopoly, for example preventing other media players from installing, or making contracts like they did in the early days, that prevent bundling. Thats what Microsoft was guilty of in their previous anti-trust case.
The EU and North Korea courts both found them currently guilty of illeagal tying. That they use their OS monopoly to distribute their media player on ALL new computers, that they prohibit PC retailers from removing or disabling it, that they prohibit the end customer from removing or disabling it.
They are absusing their monopoly to impose the media player as mandatorily present and active on all new PCs. That the Windows monopoly is being illegally abused to tie the media player to the OS to establish and enforce a monopoly position for their media player.
Independant software developers will code their software to interface uniquely with Microsoft's media player because of its enforced monopoly presence, and not bother with any standard compatibility for any other media players which may or may not be present. And they will do so even if they consider Microsoft's media player to be notably inferior.
The general public buying that various independant software will be denied any choice but the Microsoft media player, even if they consider it notably inferior.
Microsoft specifically wants it to be unremovable, to enforce an extention of a monopoly position in one area into a monopoly position in a second area, even if PC retailers consider it an inferior product, enen if independant software producers consider it an inferior product, and even if end customers consider it an inferior product.
The sole reason Microsoft's media player is winning there, even if it is an inferior product, is because of Microsoft tying it to their existing monopoly and enforcing that tying.
That is exactly what anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent, to prevent a monopoly in one area being abused to establish an inferior product as a monopoly in a second area.
If Microsoft's media player is removable then there is at least some chance competition may be possible. Some PC retailer could possibly decide that some competing media player is better, and they could install that as the default. End users could decide that some competing media player is better, and remove Microsoft's player and set their own choice to handle all media files. And if independant software developers don't want to piss off their customers with broken nonfunctional applications, their software needs to use the standard interface and the standard media formats be compatible with and properly function with the media player(s) that the end user market has judged to be better.
Even that still leaves Microsoft with a staggering advantage, but if some other media player is signifigantly better then at least it has a *chance* of trying to compete. A *chance* that PC retailers will replace the Microsoft default with the better media player and that it will actually be used. A *chance* that end customers might actually replace the Microsoft default with the better media player and that it will actually be used.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.