The Future of Innovation At Stake?

Neuropol writes "Next week, Microsoft will launch a challenge against the European Union's highest court. The European Commission will need to decide if they are to overturn the EU Court's 2004 Anti-Trust case ruling. Amid arguments over the usual suspects like Windows Media Player, one of the key points of the CNN article that caught my attention was this quote from a EU Commission lawyer stating that Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.'"

Comments

It's been their goal all along

[El Cubano]

Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.'

That has been their goal since the inception of Microsoft Network. They saw how lucrative Prodigy and Compuserver and AOL were and wanted to get in on the action. The problem was that they were too late and those services were already on the decline in favor of more open Internet access. "You mean I can send a message to by friend who has Compuserve even though I am on AOL?"

Basically, they have been trying to bring the world back to the "bad old days".

Old argument

[Billosaur]

The Commission found Microsoft tied its own Windows Media Player so it would appear on every computer running Windows, unfairly competing against RealNetworks' Real Player and others.

Yes, bundling Media Player with Windows gives MS an unfair advantage givent their market penetration. However, Windows does not prevent you from downloading any media software you want and using it. This is the same intellectualization people use when they talk about offensive books or TV programs. Yes, these things are readily available, but if you don't like their content, you can always refuse to read those books or watch those programs. And so it goes with Windows: use Media Player or don't -- you have a choice.

In the end, it isn't about Media Player, per se, but Microsoft's domination of the software market. However, all the EU is doing is poking Gulliver with their Lilliputian sticks. Unless the EU plans on banning Microsoft entriely (and how could they!), they will never be able to put enough of a chokehold on Ballmer and Company to seriously dent their market share.

Re:Old argument

[The_Noid]

This isn't about the player itself, it's about the codecs.
If you as content provider want to distribute something to a large audience you have to choose a codec. So what are you going to choose?
A. Real, that isn't installed on just about every computer on the planet, meaning a large part of you audience will have to search for a player and install it. Meaning most won't bother with your content cause it's too much of a hassle.
B. WMV, wich directly plays on just about every machine without problems...

Most providers will go for B, don't you think?

This means that Microsoft is using it's dominance in the OS market to get a monopoly in the Codecs market... and that's illegal. That's what they've been convicted for, and they are now trying to get out of the punishment.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[IAmTheDave]

first Last year, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer told Germany's Manager Magazin: "We needed the first years to conquer the PC and those following to be ahead in the server business. In the upcoming years we'll conquer the Internet." Yeah? And? Hey look, they're a company, and they win. They find a market, they go to it, and they win. Look, fining MS isn't going to do anything. If you're concerned about a monopoly, split up the company, AT&T style. A fine is useless. An MS is not - I repeat - NOT - stifiling innovation. Please. MS never broke up a company Homer Simpson style. Every company they bought sold to them. Every company that went under lost to them. I dislike MS a lot. I am a moderate Apple fan boy. But I don't discredit MS's position. Break them up, or stop crying. (*Holds hands over head, prepares for flaming and seriously painful modding...*)

Re:that attitude will get you far

[IANAAC]

yeah there's some non-windows computer jobs out there, but they are very few and far inbetween.

There are PLENTY of non-windows jobs. Take a look on Dice sometime. Just because part of the office uses Windows doesn't mean a Solaris admin needs to. The last two sysadmin jobs I had were for HPC clusters and Oracle DB clusters. The mail system was Notes, not Exchange.

All of my tools were Unix-based.

Now, if you're talking about sales, front office support, stuff like that, then yes Windows is probably required. But don't say that non-Windows jobs are few and far between. It's simply not true.

Re:Sharks with friggen lasers

[x1n933k]

I'd like to point out if you look at the business model of a lot of companies it is, in fact, for complete and global dominance with their product.

Can we blame Microsoft for having the spot it does? No. I don't think so. Millions have been paying for Windows to be their system of choice. PC took off, Windows/DOS was easy and known and was able to keep up with changing software and demands (Though, perhaps as unstable as it could be sometimes).

I guess what starts to come about is when do we draw the line? MS is a force to be reckon'd with. Having a huge budget and a huge market that not many others can compete with. So they expand into other software and then, because people use it--they bundle it and really make it a part of the starting package so you don't need to go anywhere until you're unhappy.

I'm a Apple user now. But I stil use MS Office because mostly a great word processor, second because it is supported. I've used OpenOffice on GNU/Linux system that I had, and I enjoy it too, but it isn't ready to replace it for me.

I liked what I read from other users too. There are great projects out there with are under GNU or open source. To make a difference though, software companies need to be portable--this is why these projects stand a chance.

Things that scare me are not just one company to rule them all and, one company to guide them--it's constant pirating that puts other software vendors who make good products sales down.

Meh, i lost my train of though. Soon we'll just deck-in and cause havoc on marjor corporations and goverments if need be when things get tigt. yukmyuk

[J]

Give them what they want

[carric]

This is idiotic... let's say the EU gets their way and MS has to rip out media player, IE, etc. Now what are people going to do? Buy something else?? If they don't put IE in the OS, people will either download IE or Firefox. If they take away media player, people will download media player, quicktime, and MAYBE the free version of real audio. Now what the hell has been accomplished?? I realize everyone loves to hate MS, and I have my share of issues with them, but honestly, hasn't packaging all the stuff WITH windows made running a PC cheaper? I remember when Netscape was like $40. IE is the reason we don't have to pay that anymore, so go ahead and "put your hate on", but I'm all for getting free stuff.

Re:Sharks with friggen lasers

[advocate_one]

Can we blame Microsoft for having the spot it does? No. I don't think so. Millions have been paying for Windows to be their system of choice.

bollocks... millions have never had a choice... they're victims of Microsoft's monopolistic abuses in the OEM market... OEMS forced to pay for windows even though they were shipping OS2 on machines... cliff-tiered pricing for OEM copies that made it completely uneconomical to put anything else on the machines... kickbacks in the form of market development funds for OEMs promoting only windows on machines... why else do all the PC makers have that XXX reccomends Microsoft Windows XP on their machines??? they get paid for it and if they promote any other OS actively they lose the market development funds... why else do you find the Dell Linux machines well buried in the website with no direct links to them... you have to actively search for them.