There’s been a bunch of news recently about Microsoft’s continuing anti-trust problems. There were arguments in Massachusetts’ appeal of the consent decree between MS and the Department of Justice. Also, three days of hearings occurred this week in the European Union’s investigation of MS conduct in Europe. Nothing definitive happened, but there are some intriguing bits and pieces that surfaced.
Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
The US hearing was for Massachusetts’ appeal of Judge Kollar-Kotelly ‘s approval of the DOJ/MS settlement. Massachusetts says the settlement is too light and fails to deprive Microsoft of their ill-gotten gains. Normally, I’d say their chances of winning this appeal were between slim and none. If the DOJ and the lower court are OK with the deal and feel it’s a valid expression of the appeal court’s earlier ruling, then that’s that. But Massachusetts has two things going in their favor. First, Microsoft is demonstrably still enjoying the fruits of its crimes. They have been forced to give up nothing, and they’re still fighting over Java. Also, Kollar-Kotelly and the DOJ are on record recently as expressing concern over Microsoft’s adherence to the consent decree. The proximate cause of their concern being the pitiful take-up rate on company’s wanting to look at Microsoft APIs. These two points could be argued to show Microsoft is not taking the settlement seriously. If the judges buy that argument, then all bets are off. Because then it would be a turf issue. Does Microsoft’s behavior amount to contempt of court? I wouldn’t want to be the MS attorney for that hearing.
But that’s still a long shot. A more likely (but still low-odds) result would be for the appeals court to add a few things to the consent decree. That would save face all around for the Federal courts. Rather than a rebuke of Kollar-Kotelly , it could be taken as a reinforcement of her orders. An expansion based not on her errors, but on Microsoft’s failure to fully comply. No new precedents, no nasty overturning of lower rulings, no basis for further appeal.
If the appeals court ruled that way, and its a big if, what would they order? We can forget anything that would substantially re-mold the market. No new break-up order, for example. But they could rule narrowly on the basis of denying Microsoft the fruits of their crimes that some source code might need to be opened. Say Internet Explorer and some APIs. They could rule that MS must carry Java. But since that’s the subject of separate proceedings, I wouldn’t count on it.
If (there’s a lot of ifs here) they did order the source code to IE be opened, MS would immediately argue they were being deprived of property without due process, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. But that wouldn’t get them anywhere. The Federal courts have no problem with the government confiscating property when that property was related to illegal activities. Boats, cars, houses, bank accounts, jewelry, you name it and the US government has seized it as part of drug investigations. They wouldn’t need to set a precedent here in order to make such a ruling. The thinking would be, Microsoft can’t argue they’re being deprived of a valuable asset since the only reason the asset is valuable is because of their illegal behavior.
Microsoft’s lawyer, Michael Lacovara may have undermined his own case by arguing that the damage to Netscape could not be quantified. According the Washington Post, he “insisted that no one had proved that the software giant’s acts led to Netscape’s share of the market falling from nearly 85 percent to its current 5 percent.” Hmmmm. I guess that means if nobody can find the body, there must have been no murder. Realistically, nobody has to prove such a causal link. The fact that MS profited and Netscape suffered because of conduct this court has already held to be illegal is sufficient. The undermining part comes from the “85 percent” argument. If the exact fruits cannot be quantified, then a more general remedy is called for. Had Lacovara said, yes we were responsible for this, and we’re sorry and we’ll make restitutions, MS would be off the hook. Its hard to imagine that any court would impose restitutions high enough to make a significant dent in Microsoft’s pile ‘o money. I think Ballmer would be delighted to turn this into a problem that he could just throw money at. But a more general remedy could pose significant business risks in the future.
Its always a mistake to read too much into the questions the justices ask during oral arguments. But you can sometimes determine the general direction of their thinking. For example, if all the questions are about the First Amendment, its unlikely they are going to decide the case based on the Fifth. In this case they were predictably scornful of Massachusetts dragging the rotting corpse back into their courtroom. On the other hand, some of the questions clearly showed that they understand the “ill-gotten gains” argument. There is no way to tell if they agree or disagree with the argument, but they certainly recognize that its an argument they must deal with one way or another.
In Europe, things look a bit more serious for Microsoft. The European Commission has decided that Microsoft’s conduct has violated EU anti-trust law and that they should 1) change that conduct and 2) be punished for past transgressions. The three days of hearings this week concerned what changes and punishments would be appropriate. When the commission renders its final decision, Microsoft will almost certainly appeal. That will take some time. The Commission was slapped hard three times in court last year for the way it handled anti-trust cases. So the court is no slam dunk and MS would lose nothing by trying its luck. But, and its a big but, the Commission is said to have gone so slowly on this precisely because they wanted an airtight case before the courts. If they do have such a case, its very likely that any non-monetary remedies the Commission orders will be allowed to stand during the appeal. That’s significant. If they are ordered to take Media Player out of Windows, then MS would face the choice of complying or not doing business in Europe. The slow appeals process would become their enemy rather than their ally.
Most commentators have focused on the fines the EU might impose (up to 10% of annual gross revenue). That’s irrelevant. Ballmer would love to make this all go away for a measly 2 or 3 billion dollars. Much more serious would be a sweeping EU order to remove Media Player and/or open up sufficient APIs to create a level playing field in the server market. Especially if they couldn’t get the order stayed during appeal. I don’t know what MS would do. They would probably have to comply.
The server market is one where MS has big aspirations, but not a big market share. An order to open the APIs would be a setback, but not a decisive one. Its different with Media Player. That has taken on a much greater importance for MS in the three years since the EU started this case. Here’s the problem. Microsoft has grown too big for the markets it dominates. Where’s the growth in OS revenues going to come from in 5 years? They can’t double their market share. Same goes for Office. MS needs new markets and needs them desperately. That’s why they’ve thrown money at cable, phones, game consoles, and anything else they can think of. I don’t think they have a grand and detailed plan for global domination. I think they know what way they want to go and they keep trying things. Then they reinforce success. When they launched Media Player, it wasn’t that important in the grand scheme. But of all the non OS, non Office possibilities, NGSCB (Trusted Computing) looks like the best bet right now. By hooking up the player, DRM, MS file formats and a secure OS, Microsoft opens some vast new markets. Look at it this way, Apple may be the legal music download champ today. But if MS has anything to do with it, they will own that market in five years. And they need the player to do that. Each part of the puzzle is critical and reinforces the other parts. MS file formats and hardware Ids mean it would be hard to get around DRM. A secure OS tied to the hardware makes it hard to get around restrictive file formats. Strong DRM is what Hollywood wants to hear about. And the player wraps the whole thing up and puts it in the user’s lap.
They can do all this without the player, but its a lot more difficult. Especially the Hollywood-DRM part. The studios have failed to get compulsory DRM tied to hardware through lawyers, lobbying or laws. But if MS can pull this off, they’ll be able to give the studios exactly what they want. In substance if not in name. What would that be worth?
So there’s a lot at stake here. Although MS is making nicey-nice noises, they apparently told the Commission that they have done nothing wrong, and shouldn’t be punished at all. That the Commission’s evidence is anecdotal, that MS won’t countenance a crippled version of Windows for the European market, and that the US settlement is sufficient to address any problems.
If they really did say those things, they’re toast. They may not realize that the more polite a bureaucrat becomes, the angrier they really are. An American company judged to have damaged European consumers and business through illegal tactics will not be treated nicely. Especially one that tells the EU to shut up and accept the Bush administration’s wisdom on the matter. Also, Microsoft’s trump argument “measure x will only help our competitors” carries zero weight in the EU. There are plenty of free-market conservatives there, but the idea that governmental intervention might skew the market is fine with them. They do it all the time. Look at Airbus. Having gone so far, the EU can’t back off now, especially when they’ve said the transgressions are ongoing. All the political minefields are on the path to compromise. They lose nothing by being as tough as possible, they could lose a lot if they aren’t seen as being tough enough.
And so the inexorable slow grind of justice continues. Probably, MS will win the US case. Probably, they will lose the EU case. To make it worse, the EU has started investigating them again in a separate matter. Make no mistake, the EU competition bureaucrats are just as craven as any others. But they have an institutional need to prevail this time. The three recent rebuffs in court hurt them a great deal. They need to re-establish some credibility. They need a win, and they’ve got MS pretty much sewn up. At this point, Mr. Ballmer should be thinking about what to do when that happens.
Very well written article. Microsoft is far from being able to feel safe from the fallout from their past and currents illegal deeds. The computer industry is changing and the future won’t be owned by Microsoft. Get used to it.
…and has more to do with jingoism than anything else. TO suggest that Microsoft holds a monopoly in desktop OSes and that there was no competition was debatable. To say they have a monopoly in server OSes and they should be punished for this is absurd. As for the media player, it is ridiculous to think a modern OS should ship without one and to suggest that the company cannot be allowed to design and develop their own solutions for problems like this is frightening. The EU is nothing more than neo-fascism and needs to be abolished.
I almost believed you until the neo-facism part
Nice try on inflating the stereotype, though 
the government will tire of dragging MS into court on a regular basis and break up the company like they did to Ma Bell. And then we will finally have a competitive software industry. By not doing it, it not only has an adverse effect on the American consumer, but people all around the world. If it was a European company causing all this trouble, we’d certainly expect the EU to do something about it. Enough of Microsoft’s games already….the government needs to get serious.
They also have to answer to the EU, and there is an injunction pending against them filed by Intertrust which if granted will stop 85% of Microsoft’s product line. Not only will they loose money from that, they will loose just about all crediablity of being a honest software maker(well the shreads they have left).
They have done an admirable job — created the one standard OS, the one standard internet browser, and a set of standard file formats. Not only are their technologies the recognized industry standard, they are also far ahead of the competition. I’d love for Microsoft to become “the one software company.” I hate downloading some free app only to find out its third-rate teenager crap.
If MS being brought down would be as wonderful as it may seem … I mean, imagine if you worked in this field and having to keep up with 3-4 different operating systems instead of only one.
Its about damn time!
They have done an admirable job — created the one standard OS, the one standard internet browser, and a set of standard file formats.
I fail to see why having a standard OS and web browser is good.
Standard file formats MS certainly tries to avoid. Instead
they mostly create their own formats.
Not only are their technologies the recognized industry standard, they are also far ahead of the competition.
Uhh.. that’s very objective, I’d rather say the opposite.
I’d love for Microsoft to become “the one software company.” I hate downloading some free app only to find out its third-rate teenager crap.
Well, that’s the difference between plan economy and a free market. In a plan economy there is preferably only one “company” for every kind of product, in a free market companies compete. My guess is that most people in the western world prefer the latter.
microsoft is the one that needs to stop harrassing customers, end users, pc makers, competition, standards bodies, government agencies, phone makers, switch vendors, semiconductor makers, schools etc.
MS needs to behave.
@me: You seem to not have a good grasp of the whole point of the free market. Monopolies are a special case of the free market. They do *not* get to play by the same rules as everyone else. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the EU to demand that Microsoft not ship a media player with their OS. It wouldn’t be if they weren’t a monopoly, but they are, so it is.
Monopolies are a danger to the whole free market system. For this reason, governments have created anti-trust laws. These laws remove some freedom, but to protect the overall system. Its one of those times when individual rights are restricted for the good of society as a whole — like how we have laws against theft, laws protecting copyright, etc. It would be nice if we didn’t need these laws, and we could have freedom all the time, but human nature does not allow us to do things this way.
@Worknman: Unfortunately, convenience has little to do with this. It would be convenient if we could buy everything from one company and always know how to call for support and whatnot, but that would destroy our economy. The steady state of a true free market is to have numerous companies constantly competing with each other. Any other situation is inefficient — pissing away the resources of the economy.
Yes, it is great that MS bundles a media player with the OS – most operating systems do in fact bundle one or more media players, along with other software.
What is a media player? Sort of like the radio in your car. How would you like it if say, GM, said to you ‘here’s a free radio in your car, but oh, you can’t remove it or the car won’t work properly’ or ‘we could sell you a car without a radio so you could install your own radio, but it might not play songs properly and in fact, other functions might not be the same – in fact, you might not even be able to drive on certain highways without your GM radio’.
You would think GM was pulling one over on you, wouldn’t you? Same thing here.
(BTW, my last car was a GM – and the radio didn’t work for the last two years I had the car. But the rest of the car still worked perfectly…)
I understand that concept perfectly but I certainly have a problem with the EU going after MS for being a monopoly in the server market and media players, neither of which have been proven. The EU is pre-emptively striking at Microsoft, something I find reprehensible. What’s next? We pre-emptively go after people whose genetic or psychological profile makes them more likely to commit murder, theft or some other criminal act? Microsoft is certainly not a monopoly in the server market nor have they leveraged their dominance in the desktop market to improve their standing in the server market. Even if they have, it has certainly not yielded any significant results.
As for the media player, do you suggest that because they are a monopoly they cannot include this functionality in their OS? Why stop there, or better yet, why focus only in this area? Surely their dominance in the desktop market means they should rip out IE, OE, TCP/IP, Windows Explorer, Notepad, Wordpad, Calulator, Windows Messenger, Solitaire and a couple dozen other apps that were once the domain of third party utilities. If the competition is allowed to include a media player then MS should be allowed to compete on this level. If Apple decided to rip out Quicktime and iTunes then perhaps I’d agree that MS’ inclusion of WMP is certainly an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Even if Apple is not a monopoly in the PC market, one could easily argue with the same logic Judge Jackson used and claim they are a monopoly in the PowerPC market and Quicktime and iTunes are equally damaging to Real, et al. Shouldn’t the EU be focusing on their abuses as well?
Couldn’t Microsoft just have WMP as an optional component via “Custom” install?
I have no problems about Microsoft bundling software. I have a problem with the fact that the software HAS to be installed. Allow me to keep WMP, OE or IE out of a Windows install, and I might actually LIKE using Windows again.
A lot of car manufacturers are going this route now. They desughn the stereo systems to mold into the interior design of the car and it is quite difficult to find an after market system that fits nicely with the car. Not only that but with the inclusion of in car navigation and entertainment systems, it is becoming more difficult to compete with the car manufacturers in this market.
As far as your anaolgy goes, it’s a bit off. Sure MS should add WMP to the list of items in the add/remove control panel applet, regardless it is still something that can be safely removed by editing the sysoc.inf file in the windows directory. Same goes for a list of other apps such as Windows Messenger and MSN Explorer.
To say there might be problems with Windows later is not misstating the truth either. Many applications take advantage of the fact that there is a full-fledged media player with the OS and Windows offers consistent functionality through WMP that they do not want to risk leaving up to third parties. If WMP is not offered with the OS then it becomes far more difficult for third parties to develop apps using multi-media technology because they now have to license it from a third party and install it on the users system. This adds to the cost of the app and if the app is delivered via the internet it adds to the size of the file.
The article talks about punishing MS. I don’t care about punishing MS. Some of the comments hate MS, others love MS. I don’t care about that either. All I want is choice. Just as when car shopping. Not just – what model of Toyota do you want? But rather – do you want a Toyota, Honda or Volkswagen? Or something else.
The article talks about punishing MS. I don’t care about punishing MS. Some of the comments hate MS, others love MS. I don’t care about that either. All I want is choice. Just as when car shopping. Not just – what model of Toyota do you want? But rather – do you want a Toyota, Honda or Volkswagen? Or something else.
You’ve got it and always had it – where’s the problem ?
“You’ve got it and always had it – where’s the problem ?”
Since you asked…Can you give me a list of stores that sell PCs with either Linux, BSD, or BeOS or any other OS that runs on x86 pre-installed? I can’t seem to find any. They all seem to want to sell me Windows for some reason.
The problem is I don’t seem to be getting much of a choice.
I understand that concept perfectly but I certainly have a problem with the EU going after MS for being a monopoly in the server market and media players, neither of which have been proven. The EU is pre-emptively striking at Microsoft, something I find reprehensible. What’s next?
Why should the EU wait until the damage has been made, as with the case of the desktop operating system market? the EU is reviewing that threat and deciding whether there is significant evidence to back up their decision.
We’ve already seen Microsoft tear through the desktop and browser market, should we wait until the last minute, when no competion exists then suddenly realise that it would be a nice idea to put restraints.
Basically what you’re saying is that we should have the “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” mentality rather than taking preventative action before the damage is done.
We pre-emptively go after people whose genetic or psychological profile makes them more likely to commit murder, theft or some other criminal act? Microsoft is certainly not a monopoly in the server market nor have they leveraged their dominance in the desktop market to improve their standing in the server market. Even if they have, it has certainly not yielded any significant results.
That has nothing to do with the business world. Psychology is such a “pie in the sky” science, there is no way one can point out and say, “that person has a tendency to be violent” when in actual fact, they may have also the capacity to restrain themself, which is not not a “measurable” trait.
Again, why wait till the damage is done. All the EU is asking for is the same the member states have been doing with their local telecom’s by demanding that the local loop is unbundled to allow competitors to enter the market. Funny how we don’t see you complain about the fact that because of the unbundling that occured in the US, telephone calls and internet charges are cheaper now than they have ever been.
As for the media player, do you suggest that because they are a monopoly they cannot include this functionality in their OS? Why stop there, or better yet, why focus only in this area? Surely their dominance in the desktop market means they should rip out IE, OE, TCP/IP, Windows Explorer, Notepad, Wordpad, Calulator, Windows Messenger, Solitaire and a couple dozen other apps that were once the domain of third party utilities.
I think the part you are missing with the media player isn’t the fact that the media player is installed but the fact that it is installed, the codec is closed and each of the other players in the market aren’t willing to work together.
The fact remains that the vast majority of the cash produced by Real comes from server sales. What gets me up and arms is the fact that Real is doing nothing to improve the situation and the only long term solution is for them to be purchased by an operating systems player, such as Red Hat, SUN and Novell/SuSE/Ximian, and start bundling it with their server operating system for free.
If the competition is allowed to include a media player then MS should be allowed to compete on this level. If Apple decided to rip out Quicktime and iTunes then perhaps I’d agree that MS’ inclusion of WMP is certainly an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
True, however, I would also say that Real and Quicktime should stop beating their chest and make a CODEC for their format and allow their competitors to bundle this CODEC for free with their player. If a player can play each others codecs then the issue that one player is dominating will be a none issue as all players can play each other media.
The important part isn’t the player but the format and the server end. The player is an “enabler”, if the “enabler” is “nulled” and can work with any format, Quicktime would then simply work on MacOS, Media Player would just work on Windows and Real would work on *NIX/*BSD and thus, the big battle would be at the server end, not the consumer, who don’t represent directly in any money made.
Even if Apple is not a monopoly in the PC market, one could easily argue with the same logic Judge Jackson used and claim they are a monopoly in the PowerPC market and Quicktime and iTunes are equally damaging to Real, et al. Shouldn’t the EU be focusing on their abuses as well?
That doesn’t make any sense. As a desktop solution, Apple may have a monopoly, however, the issue isn’t whether they have a monopoly but whether they abuse that monopoly and no matter how much you would just love to spin the issue out of proportion, the fact remains that Apple doesn’t abuse its position.
For example, SKY TV in New Zealand has a monopoly over pay TV and yet, it is not hauled to the Commerce Commission because it doesn’t abuse that monopoly.
“…the fact remains that Apple doesn’t abuse its position.”
Really? Perhaps you’d like to explain this situation to Apple’s independent retailers then. I’m sure they’d love to hear how Apple has not screwed them out of the market. Here’s some links for your perusal.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/directsales.html
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/specialistchanges2.html
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/specialistchanges.html
This doesn’t even get into issues such as the Watson/Sherlock 3 problems or Adobe and Apple’s fight over iPhoto and iMovie being included with the OS.
“Why should the EU wait until the damage has been made, as with the case of the desktop operating system market? the EU is reviewing that threat and deciding whether there is significant evidence to back up their decision.”
Because laws should NEVER be pre-emptively applied. You say Psychology is a “pie in the sky” science and I agree. However, Government’s ability to fortell the future has an even worse success record.
Hmmmm. I guess that means if nobody can find the body, there must have been no murder. Realistically, nobody has to prove such a causal link. The fact that MS profited and Netscape suffered because of conduct this court has already held to be illegal is sufficient.
You mean, other things like the fact that Netscape started a 5-year rewrite, not coming out with anything major in the meantime as not a probable cause of its lack of success? What about Netscape 4 which was Netscape’s main product under Netscape 6 – how componenized it is? How many third-party software can easily embed Netscape like they do with IE? They can’t? So besides being slow and unstable, it has absolutely nothing against IE?
From the way I see it, Netscape deserve the state it is today. If it weren’t Microsoft that killed it, it would be someone else. The worse part is the rewrite – keeping potential customers waiting so long while they are considering moving to IE isn’t the brightest of ideas.
If they are ordered to take Media Player out of Windows, then MS would face the choice of complying or not doing business in Europe.
If they force Microsoft to remove Media Player, they are worser than I thought. Even after almost 4 years after Microsoft integrated NetShow into Windows, Real remains to be the market leader. Apple is closely trailing Microsoft as the 3rd biggest player in the market. Certainly, if anything, it proves that bundling software with Windows doesn’t gurrentee that products’ success.
And Real isn’t that nice a software company. Almost every time Real is mentioned here in OSNews, there is someone who would always they they would rather do [insert extremely negative thing] than to use Real. Yet Real manage to maintain its market leadership.
By hooking up the player, DRM, MS file formats and a secure OS, Microsoft opens some vast new markets. Look at it this way, Apple may be the legal music download champ today. But if MS has anything to do with it, they will own that market in five years.
If anything, what Microsoft is doing now shows they aren’t going to try to dominate WMP in selling music. There is a music service in Europe similar to iTunes Music Store, only on WMP. There’s also Napster and buymusic.com. Certainly, if Microsoft decides to dominate this trade, they are worser businessmen than I thought. They can make as much money, if not more, collecting royalties for the format etc.
And let’s just say Microsoft decides in WMP 10.0 that something like iTunes is going to be in there. But how many would switch? Apple uses ACC, and its files, among other things cannot be burned with WMP. Customers would have a hard time switching, so if they do switch they would have to look at the merits of switching like “Does Microsoft have more music I would buy?” or “How fast is the downloads using Microsoft service?”
If iTunes doesn’t screw up that part, it is hard for Microsoft to dominate Surely, they can and will take a huge chunk of market share, but they will not dominate unless iTunes serverely screws up like Netscape did.
Strong DRM is what Hollywood wants to hear about. And the player wraps the whole thing up and puts it in the user’s lap.
Remember the first few legal music outlets online like Pressplay? They had strong DRM with even stronger restrictions. They flopped. Customers don’t want that, and Hollywood would have to learn that. Plus, the DRM with Real today is stronger than WMP, wouldn’t by logic they choose Real?
And Hollywood have to worry more about other things besides DRM and media format – most of their potential customers are still dial-up users. Don’t expect Hollywood to roll out something like iTunes for their movies anytime soon, though matter the format.
They lose nothing by being as tough as possible, they could lose a lot if they aren’t seen as being tough enough.
Actually, if the Commision gets tough, European customers would loose a stable Windows where applications embeding WMP, amongst other things wouldn’t work anymore. Either that or whatever the Commision decides wouldn’t really matter. OEMs for surely wouldn’t want technical problems for their customers, would voluntarily install WMP before shipping their products. And most Windows sales in the first place is via OEM.
I understand that concept perfectly but I certainly have a problem with the EU going after MS for being a monopoly in the server market and media players, neither of which have been proven.
>>>>>>>>>>
They’re going after MS in those markets because its an example of MS using their monopoly in one market to try to dominate another market. As ChocolateCheescake properly notes, MS isn’t just competing in the media player market, they’re trying to dominate it by virtue of WMP being close and non-interoperable.
The EU is pre-emptively striking at Microsoft, something I find reprehensible.
>>>>>>>>>>
Its accepted practice to preempt a monopoly before it does damage in another market. If you find it reprehensible, draft your arguments, with proper economic theory backing them up, and submit them to the EU for consideration. Also be prepared to argue with the economists consulting for the EU.
As for the media player, do you suggest that because they are a monopoly they cannot include this functionality in their OS?
>>>>>>>>>
I’m not suggesting it, the EU is. In anti-trust cases, its up to the judgement of the government to decide how to best address the problem. The EU feels that putting competing media player manufacturers on an even playing field with MS is enough to protect competition in the market. If MS wants to do business in Europe, it has to abide by local laws.
Why stop there, or better yet, why focus only in this area?
>>>>>>>
Because the EU feels that further measures aren’t necessary. We’d all like to have hard and fast rules for everything, but in cases like this its just not possible.
Even if Apple is not a monopoly in the PC market, one could easily argue with the same logic Judge Jackson used and claim they are a monopoly in the PowerPC market
>>>>>>>>
Actually, the majority of PowerPC chips run non-Apple OSs. Motorola didn’t even care enough about Apple to focus development efforts on their desktop chips. Apple is a monopoly on the Apple desktop market. Its another judgement call, but I feel pretty safe saying that this “market” is too narrow to be considrered seperately from the desktop market in general.
and Quicktime and iTunes are equally damaging to Real, et al. Shouldn’t the EU be focusing on their abuses as well?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Because Apple is not a monopoly, they cannot abuse their powers. And Quicktime is openly documented, so its not the same situation anyway.
ealm: I fail to see why having a standard OS and web browser is good. Standard file formats MS certainly tries to avoid. Instead they mostly create their own formats.
How many standard file formats are there? How many standard media formats out there? (If you mention MPEG as a standard, do also mention that MPEG is controlled by a tight consortium of rich companies and they charge a higher royalty price for various MPEG formats than Microsoft does)
ealm: Well, that’s the difference between plan economy and a free market. In a plan economy there is preferably only one “company” for every kind of product, in a free market companies compete. My guess is that most people in the western world prefer the latter.
If they want the latter, they could easily walk into an Apple store and walk out with a Mac. They could easily go to [insert Linux distro here] site and download their ISO images or order a set of CDs. If they wanted choice with their browsers, it is a no-brainer to go to http://www.mozilla.org or http://www.opera.com and download a different web broswer (I have, BTW, been using Opera for the past couple of years). If they wanted choice with their media players, they could easily download WinAMP, iTunes and Quicktime, RealOne, etc.
The last I check, anyone could have done that. Easily.
Brett Legree: What is a media player? Sort of like the radio in your car. How would you like it if say, GM, said to you ‘here’s a free radio in your car, but oh, you can’t remove it or the car won’t work properly’ or ‘we could sell you a car without a radio so you could install your own radio, but it might not play songs properly and in fact, other functions might not be the same – in fact, you might not even be able to drive on certain highways without your GM radio’.
Your analogy sucks. Let’s just say we removed WMP from Windows. Everything works fine, right? Then I open Kazaa, and decide to preview some song that is still downloading: And error jumps out and Kazaa would probably crash. Okay that’s fine, I would just buy that song off Napster. While there, I decide to preview another song: Bang, Napster crash too. Why? They embed WMP for previews. Okay, that’s fine, I don’t feel like listening to music. So I go via IE to Yahoo! Movies to watch some trailers – bang, IE crashes too. If I had time, I would go on and on about different applications crashing. By comparison, the engine, tyres, motor, etc. of a GM car doesn’t depend on WMP.
You want to get rid of WMP without causing anything to crash? That’s very easy. Go to F:Program FilesWindows Media Player and delete wmplayer.exe. You save 72kb of space. Enjoy that 72kb.
Vargasan: Couldn’t Microsoft just have WMP as an optional component via “Custom” install?
You could do that, and end up with a whole lot of programs left not working anymore. You just want to hide WMP? Easy: Control Panel> Add/Remove Programs> Add/Remove Windows Components. Most people, BTW, don’t install Windows.
Claus: But rather – do you want a Toyota, Honda or Volkswagen? Or something else.
When you are buying a company, do you want a [insert Wintel company here], Apple or [insert Linux OEM company like Walmart here]. Most people, either out of ignorance, or out of need, choose the first.
ChocolateCheeseCake: Why should the EU wait until the damage has been made, as with the case of the desktop operating system market? the EU is reviewing that threat and deciding whether there is significant evidence to back up their decision.
It is still punishing before the crime had been executed.
ChocolateCheeseCake: We’ve already seen Microsoft tear through the desktop and browser market, should we wait until the last minute, when no competion exists then suddenly realise that it would be a nice idea to put restraints.
And that poses another question: Why is Microsoft’s competitors driving down a cliff?
Because laws should NEVER be pre-emptively applied.
>>>>>>>>>>
They’re not being preemptively applied. Rather, the laws themselves are preemptive. The law is (in the US, anyway, I presume the EU’s are similar) that its illegal to leverage your monopoly in one market to try to dominate another. You don’t actually have to be successful for the law to apply. Its precisely the difference between first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The penalties are generally lighter for such cases, which is true here as well. Having to ship your media player seperately is a pretty light punishment.
“…the fact remains that Apple doesn’t abuse its position.”
Really? Perhaps you’d like to explain this situation to Apple’s independent retailers then. I’m sure they’d love to hear how Apple has not screwed them out of the market. Here’s some links for your perusal.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/directsales.html
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/specialistchanges2.html
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/specialistchanges.html
This doesn’t even get into issues such as the Watson/Sherlock 3 problems or Adobe and Apple’s fight over iPhoto and iMovie being included with the OS.
So you’re somehow claiming that these companies were forced to be Apple resellers and forced to sign a contract? As for Adobe and Apples fight over iPhoto and iMovie being included with the operating system, what on earth are you going on about? How is that any worse than Microsoft including Movie Maker with Windows XP?
Stop making up imaginary stories to back up your fictional fanaticises. Come out of the closet and admit you’re yet another Paul Thorrett anti-Apple disciple.
“Why should the EU wait until the damage has been made, as with the case of the desktop operating system market? the EU is reviewing that threat and deciding whether there is significant evidence to back up their decision.”
Because laws should NEVER be pre-emptively applied. You say Psychology is a “pie in the sky” science and I agree. However, Government’s ability to fortell the future has an even worse success record.
Ok, lets allow AT&T purchase all the local telecoms, close of the local loop and allow them to price gouged customers for 20 years before something is done and whilst customers are being ripped off, money is being sucked out of the economy at an increasing rate. Nice, I would love to see your logic in action!
They’re going after MS in those markets because its an example of MS using their monopoly in one market to try to dominate another market. As ChocolateCheescake properly notes, MS isn’t just competing in the media player market, they’re trying to dominate it by virtue of WMP being close and non-interoperable.
WMP closed and non-interoperable? I would have to spend less money licensing WMA and WMV to make my own media player than I would with, say MPEG-4 and ACC. And just how interoperable and open is Quicktime, iTunes and Real is anyway?
Its accepted practice to preempt a monopoly before it does damage in another market. If you find it reprehensible, draft your arguments, with proper economic theory backing them up, and submit them to the EU for consideration. Also be prepared to argue with the economists consulting for the EU.
Considering how those economists stood by while bureacrats in Brussels ran amok, reducing European economic edge, I don’t think fighting them would be all that tough.
The EU feels that putting competing media player manufacturers on an even playing field with MS is enough to protect competition in the market.
Okay, just say EU forced Microsoft to bundle Real. Then what? It would be unfair to Apple and Nullsoft. So bundle iTunes and Quicktimes along with Winamp with Windows. But that would be unfair to companies like MusicMatch, or projects like MPlayer. Sooner or later, there would be so much media players bundled with Windows, you couldn’t tell the difference between the average Linux distribution and Windows. Either that or EU would be favouring some companies over others.
Actually, the majority of PowerPC chips run non-Apple OSs. Motorola didn’t even care enough about Apple to focus development efforts on their desktop chips.
Majority of PowerPC chips don’t run Mac OS – right. How many many PowerPC desktops/workstations that don’t run Mac OS? Now, just say one day, suddenly all the routers carried x86 processors for some strange reason, and Microsoft share in the x86 pie reduces to, say, 50%. Would that make Microsoft a non-monopoly anymore?
Because Apple is not a monopoly, they cannot abuse their powers. And Quicktime is openly documented, so its not the same situation anyway.
No, they can say “Get out of our truff” and Real has no chance whatsoever of running on the majority of PowerPC desktops.
So you’re somehow claiming that these companies were forced to be Apple resellers and forced to sign a contract? As for Adobe and Apples fight over iPhoto and iMovie being included with the operating system, what on earth are you going on about? How is that any worse than Microsoft including Movie Maker with Windows XP?
me isn’t debating that bundling iMovie is bad. He is saying it is hypocritical to punish one company and let the other go. And since when are OEMs forced to sign a contract with Microsoft? They could easily be bundling Linux, BSD, etc. They instead choose to sign a contract with Microsoft. By that logic, Microsoft should be let off the hook.
Ok, lets allow AT&T purchase all the local telecoms, close of the local loop and allow them to price gouged customers for 20 years before something is done and whilst customers are being ripped off, money is being sucked out of the economy at an increasing rate. Nice, I would love to see your logic in action!
I would love to see how AT&T come up with the money to buy all those companies. Heh. Besides, even if AT&T could, there is huge amounts of restrictions on what a telco can do in this market (which is probably why it is rare for a telco to post profits).
People are being rather short sighted here. Proprietory formats suck. And there is a huge danger of MS using WMP as a club if it becomes popular.
First, let me frame my arguement with one point:
As a Linux user, I am breaking my country’s laws EVERY SINGLE TIME I PLAY A DVD. That’s because my dvd software includes decryption software that is unlicensed. Proprietory formats have forced me and many other alternative OS users into becoming criminals.
Right now, users of alternative OS can still communicate with the rest of the world. We have programs like ffmpeg that have reverse-engineered proprietory formats and allows us to access these formats. What about when this reverse-engineering becomes illegal? In the US, breaking copy protection is already illegal. Tie access to the video format to the copy protection mechanism and *boom* — media files that no alternative OS can play, enforced by the government itself.
Howdy
Hmmm i am all in favor of great software taking the place of crap, but when you remove my choice of what to install and when i get pissed.
M$`s monopoly is not about them making great software and us wanting to beat them down but it`s about choice and freedom.<<insert matrix movie tie-in here>>
Seriously you can`t tell me these guys care about being open and allowing others to build on what they have acheived, instead they simply wish to dominate all technology <<insert lord of the rings tie-in here>>
I think M$ has done wonderfull things for computing but they have done just as many if not more “evil” things aswell (think monkies-bbspot.com)
Ok i must leave now my beer is empty and my helper monkies refuse to get me another :0(
I’ll admit Microsoft made a few shoddy deals. But the other “players” fvcked themselves up.
-> Apple doesn’t want to mass market and focuses more on Quality than price. And they’ve got the best OS and computers in the field. Nothing from other vendors even comes close to the quality and sophistication.
-> IBM fvcked up majorly. But then IBMers are that good when it comes to going to the consumer field. They deliberately killed off OS/2. It’s not Microsoft’s fault, it’s IBMs. Everybody would be multitasking by now. IBM executives are and always have been blind.
-> Commodore… The Amiga never had a chance with CBM at the helms. They could have had Europe all to themselves but they managed to screw themselves up over there. Great OS but bad hardware.
Microsoft had no competition at all. Only Linux now has a good chance at gaining serious market share. IMO if Apple can get UNIX to have better usability than Windows then Linux can too.
You see, for your problem, Microsoft isn’t the cause. In fact, it isn’t a contributing cause. It is DMCA, Hollywood and MPAA, RIAA, MPEG, etc. that is doing this. And Microsoft is all for repealing the DMCA (which would make watching DVDs on Linux legal again). What to fix this problem? The courts can do it, only Congress can. Only Congress can repeal DMCA (proving DMCA unconstitutional in court would be a very long shot). Only Congress can say no to software patents.
Besides, that goes to say that making a DVD player on Linux isn’t illegal. Making such a player open source, without paying various royalties, etc. itself is illegal.
there is definatly something microsoft is doing that is making most the computing world angry at ms, or else why would there be many many many offices switching to Linux, government passing bills to mandate and encourage the use of Opensource & GNU/Linux., anti-trust litagations in both the USA & Europe, if anyone thinks otherwise is only fooling thierself…
i want one of you people that is pro-microsoft to explain why there is so much animosity towards microsoft, and why there is so much change moving towards Linux and away from Windows…
Maybe you feel my analogy sucks, and that’s your opinion – but if you code a program that requires another program be installed first, such as WMP, and the program doesn’t check first before installing, crashes etc. – then your coding sucks and I think you should find another job.
Again, THE OPERATING SYSTEM would not be crippled by not having the player installed. Maybe certain programs won’t work quite right, but hey, that happens all the time. A fresh installation of Windows XP does not fully exploit the surround sound capabilities of my sound card. I suppose I should rely on Microsoft to ensure that everything I buy, download etc. works perfectly?
Any good programmer would have the code check first to see if the required components were there. I wanted to listen to some streaming audio on my PowerBook that was in WMA format. I didn’t have WMP installed. Guess what, the world didn’t come crashing down – there was a simple indication that I needed to install it, I did so and guess what, it worked. Then again, you were referring to Kazaa and Napster which I would hardly call ‘good code’.
-> Apple doesn’t want to mass market and focuses more on Quality than price. And they’ve got the best OS and computers in the field. Nothing from other vendors even comes close to the quality and sophistication.
To say that Apple doesn’t want to dominate is lying to yourself. Apple just doesn’t know how to dominate. It doesn’t know how to keep on dominating. But nontheless, it still wants to dominate.
Every sane company wants to dominate.
-> IBM fvcked up majorly. But then IBMers are that good when it comes to going to the consumer field. They deliberately killed off OS/2. It’s not Microsoft’s fault, it’s IBMs. Everybody would be multitasking by now. IBM executives are and always have been blind.
I have Opera, Photoshop, and Thunderbird open now with MSN Messenger, ICQ and Yahoo running in the background. Yes, I’m not multitasking. But, yes, OS/2 was a great OS. It could easily beat Windows 95 and IBM being the one controlling the market now. But I agree, IBM screwed up. Big time.
-> Commodore… The Amiga never had a chance with CBM at the helms. They could have had Europe all to themselves but they managed to screw themselves up over there. Great OS but bad hardware.
Amiga had great hardware, compared with Apple’s and IBM’s hardware. That is, before they died off. And Amiga didn’t die because of any of its doing, but rather died off because of Commodore. Amiga would be a major player if they remained an independent company, or if various owners of Amiga then on didn’t screwed it up further.
Microsoft had no competition at all. Only Linux now has a good chance at gaining serious market share. IMO if Apple can get UNIX to have better usability than Windows then Linux can too.
Ease of use barely plays a major role. Windows had been worser in usablity than any of its early competitors, yet manage to come out victorious. Linux’s flexiblity and price would be the one determinating its success, just like it did with early Windows.
WMP closed and non-interoperable? I would have to spend less money licensing WMA and WMV to make my own media player than I would with, say MPEG-4 and ACC.
>>>>>>>>
Its not a matter of price, its a matter of accessibility.
And just how interoperable and open is Quicktime, iTunes and Real is anyway?
>>>>>>>>
Quicktime is an openly documented format. You can find the specification on Apple’s developer’s site. iTunes is just a front-end for Quicktime. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Apple isn’t a monopoly, so they can do whatever they want.
Okay, just say EU forced Microsoft to bundle Real.
>>>>>>>>>
They’re not proposing that. They’re proposing that they *not* bundle WMP.
Majority of PowerPC chips don’t run Mac OS – right. How many many PowerPC desktops/workstations that don’t run Mac OS?
>>>>>>>>>
Who says that we’re talking about desktop/workstations? He just said “the PowerPC market.”
Now, just say one day, suddenly all the routers carried x86 processors for some strange reason, and Microsoft share in the x86 pie reduces to, say, 50%. Would that make Microsoft a non-monopoly anymore?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope. Because MS isn’t a monopoly in the x86 desktop market, they are a monopoly in the desktop computer market!
No, they can say “Get out of our truff” and Real has no chance whatsoever of running on the majority of PowerPC desktops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
And because they’re not a monopoly, that’s perfectly legal!
Maybe you feel my analogy sucks, and that’s your opinion – but if you code a program that requires another program be installed first, such as WMP, and the program doesn’t check first before installing, crashes etc. – then your coding sucks and I think you should find another job.
These thirdparty applications assumes that WMP would be there, installed and integrated into Windows by default and always. Shoddy coding? Nope. Maybe they should go to the extreme and program with the fact that Win32 might not be there.
Any good programmer would have the code check first to see if the required components were there. I wanted to listen to some streaming audio on my PowerBook that was in WMA format. I didn’t have WMP installed.
You know why? [insert Mac browser here] doesn’t depend on the fact that WMP is integrated into Mac OS. It knows that there’s a high chance that WMP wouldn’t be installed. That isn’t the case with Windows. That’s the difference. And even so, most browsers, especially Safari, wouldn’t be able to play that WMA stream because they don’t support WMP… or rather WMP currently doesn’t support them.
And why should this facility for programmers be removed just because Real is unable to compete even more aggressively compete with Real? Heck, they are even slacking behind Apple.
Quicktime is an openly documented format. You can find the specification on Apple’s developer’s site. iTunes is just a front-end for Quicktime. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Apple isn’t a monopoly, so they can do whatever they want.
Apple’s format may be openly documented, but to implement it you would have to pay royalties much higher than with WMA/V. And what about Sorenson? And besides, Microsoft isn’t a monopoly in this market. They aren’t even the top player. And with the pace they are going, it takes at least 2 decades before they reach somewhere near a monopoly in this market.
Who says that we’re talking about desktop/workstations? He just said “the PowerPC market.”
He said that – true. But I’m pointing out that Apple can still be considered a monopoly for a more defined market. If you have read anti-trust laws, its defination of a single market is quite ambigous.
Nope. Because MS isn’t a monopoly in the x86 desktop market, they are a monopoly in the desktop computer market!
You didn’t reach the court transcripts didn’t you? Jackson dismissed Apple as a competitor because they weren’t in the same market.
And because they’re not a monopoly, that’s perfectly legal!
Actually, they could be recognized as a monopoly in the market they’re in, the market I defined (PowerPC-based Wordstations and desktops). It isn’t really a long shot. Why isn’t anyone suing Apple? How much can they get from suing apple? The most they can get is a couple of million dollars and a handful of users. Nothing more.
Well, I sure hope you don’t write software because if it just ‘assumes’ something is there and starts installing, I don’t ever want any of your code. Who knows what might happen?
Again, if it is so vital to your code to have another program such as WMP and you cannot add a few lines to check first, then find another line of work. I certainly wouldn’t hire you if you think that way. Never assume anything.
And if you had bothered to read the rest of my reply, you would have read that I downloaded WMP for OS X and there is a plugin for Safari.
Well, I sure hope you don’t write software because if it just ‘assumes’ something is there and starts installing, I don’t ever want any of your code. Who knows what might happen?
Most of WMP is part of the Win32 API. If I were a software developer to assume that WMP might not be there, must I also assume other parts of Win32 isn’t there?
Again, if it is so vital to your code to have another program such as WMP and you cannot add a few lines to check first, then find another line of work.
A few lines of code?
And if you had bothered to read the rest of my reply, you would have read that I downloaded WMP for OS X and there is a plugin for Safari.
My point is that programs don’t depend on the fact that WMP isn’t on OS X because 1) It normally isn’t there, 2) it isn’t loaded alongside with Mac OS X. Plus, developers wouldn’t find much use with WMP for OS X because it isn’t as componenized as the windows version, seems more like a player for compatiblity reasons only.
I don’t know – maybe you shouldn’t assume, if the playing field has changed and WMP may or may not be there. This is hypothetical, right? So, hypothetically speaking if the Windows installation may/may not have WMP, write a few lines of code in your software to check first. Doesn’t seem like a lot of work to me.
I’ve seen other programs that check for important dll’s before installing. Why not this hypothetical media application that requires WMP?
Some companies don’t seem to mind checking for important things that may or may not be present. ATI, for instance, used to indicate up front that you needed DX9 before installing the latest Catalyst drivers (not sure if they do so now, but they used to). Wow, that must have required a lot of effort on their part. Must have cost them thousands of dollars to put that little note on the web page!
Yes, you are right, a lot of car manufacturers are doing this. And a lot of third party manufacturers make adapters for this, and the installers usually check first to see if the aftermarket radio will fit rather than just assuming it will fit and slapping it in there. The market changed, and the third party manufacturers changed with it.
This is why your argument is weak. If the market in Europe changed to one where Windows might or might not have WMP, and your application requires WMP be installed, then the onus is on you to check. MS will probably not prevent you from downloading it for free – if they do, then they just prove to a lot of people that they are ‘not playing fair’ anymore. Modify your code to check first to see if it is installed. If you are not willing to adapt to the market, then perhaps you deserve what you get.
You see, for your problem, Microsoft isn’t the cause.
>>>>>>>>>
No, MS isn’t the cause for my particular problem. I didn’t say it was. but if the dominance of Windows means that WMA becomes the defacto standard in media, and MS uses laws like the DMCA to protect that domination, then it becomes my problem and MS’s fault.
And Microsoft is all for repealing the DMCA (which would make watching DVDs on Linux legal again).
>>>>>>>>>>
Says who? Microsoft is very pro-copyprotection. Heck, their upcoming Palladium technology is *built* upon the DMCA.
Apple’s format may be openly documented, but to implement it you would have to pay royalties much higher than with WMA/V.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you don’t. Please learn about Quicktime.
And what about Sorenson?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorenson is just one compression plugin for Quicktime. Other than the fact that Sorenson is QT plugin, it has nothing to do with Apple. And all of it still doesn’t matter! Neither Apple nor Sorenson are monopolies!
And besides, Microsoft isn’t a monopoly in this market.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s doesn’t matter. The law says you can’t leverage your existing monopoly to unfairly compete in another market. Using your OS monopoly to advance the usage of your media player is a pretty cut-and-dry case of this.
He said that – true. But I’m pointing out that Apple can still be considered a monopoly for a more defined market.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sony can be considered a monopoly for the “more defined market” of OSs that run on Playstation. That’s such a contrived definition of monopoly that no judge would act on it. Remember, in the end, it comes down to whether a body like the DOJ believes whether your company is a monopoly, and whether they can convince a judge of the same. That’s precisely what the DOJ has done to Microsoft here in the US.
If you have read anti-trust laws, its defination of a single market is quite ambigous.
>>>>>>>>
Its this way precisely to allow for judicial descretion.
Nope. Because MS isn’t a monopoly in the x86 desktop market, they are a monopoly in the desktop computer market!
Jackson dismissed Apple as a competitor because they weren’t in the same market.
>>>>>>>>>>
No, he dismissed them because they did not provide a competitive alternative to Windows. He mainly cited the lack of applications, and Microsoft’s control over certain major programs (MS Office) on the platform.
No, MS isn’t the cause for my particular problem. I didn’t say it was. but if the dominance of Windows means that WMA becomes the defacto standard in media, and MS uses laws like the DMCA to protect that domination, then it becomes my problem and MS’s fault.
Yes, and the solution isn’t by EU trying to stop WMP dead on its tracks. The solution is to repeal the DMCA.
No, you don’t. Please learn about Quicktime.
I suggest you do that. Sorenson – open? Hardly. MPEG-4 – Free? Hardly either. ACC – patentless? If it weren’t in your world, could you tell me what colour is the sky?
http://www.mpegla.com/
Sony can be considered a monopoly for the “more defined market” of OSs that run on Playstation. That’s such a contrived definition of monopoly that no judge would act on it. Remember, in the end, it comes down to whether a body like the DOJ believes whether your company is a monopoly, and whether they can convince a judge of the same. That’s precisely what the DOJ has done to Microsoft here in the US.
My point is that antitrust is that ambigous in that regard. For example, DOJ could have defined the market Microsoft as a wide-range computer market, where other sections like servers, mainframes, etc. is included. And BTW, a company cannot be sued for being a monopoly over its own product, and the last I check, Apple didn’t own PowerPC, no less invented or made it.
Its this way precisely to allow for judicial descretion.
Ambigious laws are dangerous for the fact that anyone can interpret it differently.
Nope. Because MS isn’t a monopoly in the x86 desktop market, they are a monopoly in the desktop computer market!
Why not you read the court transcripts first?
No, he dismissed them because they did not provide a competitive alternative to Windows. He mainly cited the lack of applications, and Microsoft’s control over certain major programs (MS Office) on the platform.
Again, court transcripts. Gotta love them, it is as if you are there. I can’t find them at the momment, Microsoft closed/changed the placed where the transcripts once were on their site.
Really I’d love to hear how Microsoft doesn’t have a monopoly. Since they were formed they have practically bought & cheated their way into power. Just about everything they have they bought and have rarely innovated. They simply buy others technology and then fiddle with it and call it their own.
To simply describe Microsft in one phrase i’d say they are “monopolistic control freaks.” Seriously I don’t hate Microsoft I hate microsofts actions. Microsoft could be a good company but their leadership consistently makes bad decisions and try to do everything in their power to prevent people from decently competing with them.
Plus they always include a lot of their software in install of Windows. They know a lot of people are stupid enough not to look around for alternatives, so they put their software on the desktop and assume people are stupid enough to not look around for alternatives. The fact that most people in one of my programming classes don’t know much about pc’s and just plainly walk into using MSN instead of looking around and knowing about other alternatives.
On top of that they put pressure on anyone considering selling PC’s with Linux… remember Dell ? I’d like to walk into any PC store and see computers preloaded with Mac OS X, Linux & Windows.
Again I don’t hate Microsoft, I hate how they play consumers for suckers, try and get rid of any competition, put their software on the desktop so people won’t use anything else. I hate how they are already trying to squash Linux. I hate that they buy out the competition and assimilate others technologys and call it their own. I hate that when you do use Windows they still try and force their own software on you. It wasn’t even till the government forced them to allow you to remove internet explorer. Even when you try and switch another browser to be the default whenver you load some pages/documents it still defaults to Microsofts software. It’s only the truth and you all know it. If you only use Windows don’t say much till you try and use non-ms products and then see how easy it is to try and escape Microsofts world.
Sorenson – open?
>>>>>>>>
I never said it was. It also has nothing to do with Quicktime other than the fact that its one encoding plugin for it.
MPEG-4 – Free?
>>>>>>>>>
Again, never said it was. But MPEG-4 is just another encoding plugin for it.
ACC – patentless?
>>>>>>>>>>
Encoding plugin.
If you haven’t caught on by now, Quicktime isn’t a compression standard, its a multimedia framework. That framework is openly documented.
My point is that antitrust is that ambigous in that regard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it is. But the fact that MS is one isn’t ambiguous. Its something that has been established by a court trial, and has not yet been overturned.
Apple didn’t own PowerPC, no less invented or made it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nintendo doesn’t own PowerPC and Sony doesn’t own MIPS. Neither will own the Cell processors. They merely use them in their complete hardware products, just as Apple uses PowerPCs in *their* complete hardware product. This was another one of Jackson’s key findings.
Ambigious laws are dangerous for the fact that anyone can interpret it differently.
>>>>>>>>>>>
They might be dangerous, but they’re necessary. And that doesn’t change the fact that the current law is flexible in this regard. If you don’t like it, lobby to have it changed.
Again, court transcripts. Gotta love them, it is as if you are there.
>>>>>>>>>>
I’ll try to get a copy. However, all the summeries of his decision that I read indicated that he focused on the “viable competitor” angle, rather than the “different market” angle.
why is the media player bundling grounds for Anti trust? Forcing computer retailers to buy MS support & products, that’s anti trust. I dont understand the problem with bundling software?
“They have done an admirable job — created the one standard OS, the one standard internet browser, and a set of standard file formats. Not only are their technologies the recognized industry standard, they are also far ahead of the competition.”
Actually, not true. Standard OS maybe, however the browser does not meet W3C standards, and the file formats are very much proprietary, not “standard”. MS has done a good job with thier prodicts, howveer they do not meet what are considered stabdard. They have made thier own “standard” while shunning the organizations responsible for the standards, such as the W3C for web browsers. That is my IE does not handle ALL of the web browsing standards, since they decided to do thier own thing instead of what the rest of the world is doing.
One thing I do like is the Media Player in Windows XP. I am glad you can play media content in Windows.
Second, the anti-trust deal did nothing except fuel the fire for more law-suits dealing in future operating systems, technology. It is best left to the consumer to voice their choice by buying what they like. When the Gov. gets involved it becomes a mess it seems.
Chris M.
I don’t think that they should dictate what MS includes in their product, however there is a problem here, and the problems is that the computer industry is only begining to mature, and Microsoft was able to jump in early and monopolize the desktop. One of the problems is the nature of technology, and the fact that people become skill dependent on one product line, the other problem is that it is difficult to enter the market when a monopoly is smothering competition. So what would make the computer industry an industry that rewards innovation and allows companies to get ahead based on successful ideas and not be smothered by a monopoly is if they broke up the monopoly into two or three separate companies.
It seems however that Linux is making inroads, especially in countries who don’t want to be controlled by an illegal monopoly, so as Linux gains a wider audience, it might not be necessary to break up Microsoft. The only difficult part is to get into the market, but once a few vendors are able to do that, than there won’t be a monopoly smothering competition anymore, and the world will be a much better place.
What is a media player? Sort of like the radio in your car.
No, more like the radio, plus the aerial, plus the wiring, plus the speakers, plus the 10 disc CD changer.
How would you like it if say, GM, said to you ‘here’s a free radio in your car, but oh, you can’t remove it or the car won’t work properly’ or ‘we could sell you a car without a radio so you could install your own radio, but it might not play songs properly and in fact, other functions might not be the same – in fact, you might not even be able to drive on certain highways without your GM radio’.
Except that’s nothing like what Microsoft are saying.
They’re simply saying “We have a product, and part of that’s product advertised features is the ability to play media, because that’s what our customers ask for. If we take out that functionality, then we are not providing our customers with the product they want.”
Nothing about not being able to take out WMP after purchase.
Nothing about not be able to use other media players.
You would think GM was pulling one over on you, wouldn’t you? Same thing here.
If GM’s car had advertised features that depended on the radio to work (say, and integrated mobile phone + hands free kit) then no, I wouldn’t consider their assertion that taking the radio out of the car would break it to be strange.
That doesn’t make any sense. As a desktop solution, Apple may have a monopoly, however, the issue isn’t whether they have a monopoly but whether they abuse that monopoly and no matter how much you would just love to spin the issue out of proportion, the fact remains that Apple doesn’t abuse its position.
Tell that to the old Mac clone makers.
Try and buy a Mac without MacOS.
Try and get a copy of OS X without Quicktime.
Try and run OS X on anything except an Apple machine.
Apple behave at _least_ as badly as Microsoft. They’ve just got a much more dedicated fan base and the things they do affect a much smaller group of people.
So you’re somehow claiming that these companies were forced to be Apple resellers and forced to sign a contract?
A lot of people seem to think OEMs that only sell Windows machines have been forced to sign a contract with Microsoft.
As for Adobe and Apples fight over iPhoto and iMovie being included with the operating system, what on earth are you going on about? How is that any worse than Microsoft including Movie Maker with Windows XP?
Nothing – bit it’s no “better” either – that’s the point.
Since you asked…Can you give me a list of stores that sell PCs with either Linux, BSD, or BeOS or any other OS that runs on x86 pre-installed? I can’t seem to find any. They all seem to want to sell me Windows for some reason.
Then you obviously aren’t looking very hard.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/directory/Hardware/PCs_with_Linux_prelo…
http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html
http://www.serasystems.com
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/hardware.html
BeOS is no longer a shipping OS, so I doubt you’re going to find anyone selling machines with it.
Or you can just wander into your local whitebox dealer and ask them for a machine without any OS and then install your own. Heck, they might even install it for you if you pay them.
Just because an OS exists, doesn’t mean someone *has* to sell you PCs with it preinstalled – it’s got to be a viable business venture, and selling machines with fringe OSes like OpenBSD, NetBSD, AtheOS, Zeta and a myriad others *isn’t*.
Despite what a lot of people try to claim, it has _always_ been possible to buy a PC without Windows or DOS.
As ChocolateCheescake properly notes, MS isn’t just competing in the media player market, they’re trying to dominate it by virtue of WMP being close and non-interoperable.
[…]
And Quicktime is openly documented, so its not the same situation anyway.
[…]
People are being rather short sighted here. Proprietory formats suck. And there is a huge danger of MS using WMP as a club if it becomes popular.
Which aspects of Quicktime are documented, where the equivalent areas of Windows are not ?
What’s proprietry about WMP that isn’t about Quicktime ?
What does Quicktime’s “openness” let you do that WMP’s “closedness” not ?
I’m wondering if Quicktime and WMP are directly comparable, if one is comparing more than just their ability to play media files.
Nope. Because MS isn’t a monopoly in the x86 desktop market, they are a monopoly in the desktop computer market!
Microsoft was declared a monopoly of the _x86_ desktop operating system market not the “desktop market in general”.
Apple is a monopoly on the Apple desktop market. Its another judgement call, but I feel pretty safe saying that this “market” is too narrow to be considrered seperately from the desktop market in general.
If you define the market as “PPC desktop computer operating systems” – as was done with Microsoft – they’re at least as much a monopoly as Microsoft is.
Because Apple is not a monopoly, they cannot abuse their powers.
Apple are at least as bad as Microsoft.
Incidentally, you’ve just highlighted a significant way that the application of antitrust laws is broken. The things that are illegal for a monopoly to do aren’t for a non-monopoly. However, the only way a monopoly can be declared is by a court. Thus, a company effectively won’t know if it’s “abusing monopoly powers” until after it’s found guilty.
drsmithy as much as I like seeing websites that sell hardware with other os’s installed you are missing the point. You pretty much have to go out of your way to get to those places. The point is Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Depot and just about any COMMON place the regular consumer masses will go you cannot get anything without Windows on it. Yes that includes local shops and specialized computer sales places. I have yet to see a place within 50 miles of me that will allow me to just buy a PC without Windows on it.
Even if you manage to get a decent pc, hardware support for it with Linux or freebsd is iffy. There is no way I can buy any pc within a decent range of me and know it will probably run alternative os’s well.
Besides that how is the ordinary consumer supposed to know about these places? They will go to the places I mentioned above and look for a good pc (usually means cheap regardless of quality sacrificed) and of course it will have Windows on it. We are talking about places everyone can go and easily obtain PC’s here. I can however find places that will sell me mac’s with no os on it if i want, or there is terrasoft if you want a new/old mac with Linux on it.
Maybe you feel my analogy sucks, and that’s your opinion – but if you code a program that requires another program be installed first, such as WMP, and the program doesn’t check first before installing, crashes etc. – then your coding sucks and I think you should find another job.
Whether or not it checks first and reports an error or crashes is irrelevant. The point is that the OS is not providing functionality it is expected to, thus, it is broken.
Again, THE OPERATING SYSTEM would not be crippled by not having the player installed.
Define what you are calling the “OPERATING SYSTEM”.
“Ok, lets allow AT&T purchase all the local telecoms, close of the local loop and allow them to price gouged customers for 20 years before something is done and whilst customers are being ripped off, money is being sucked out of the economy at an increasing rate. Nice, I would love to see your logic in action!”
I would love to see how AT&T come up with the money to buy all those companies. Heh. Besides, even if AT&T could, there is huge amounts of restrictions on what a telco can do in this market (which is probably why it is rare for a telco to post profits).
That wasn’t the direct point I was making. The fact is, even if AT&T wanted to do that, they couldn’t because it would form a monopoly and thus block competitors to enter the market. The DOJ would block the buy out on the basis that it is anti-competitive.
The WHOLE basis of anti-competitive legislation is prevention and “pre-emptive strikes” before economic damage occurs. Again I stress, what is better, pre-emption and prevention or the abulance at the bottom of the cliff picking up the pieces once the damage has been done.
There are too many people here who don’t have a clue about anti-competitive legislation and assume that action only should be taken after the damage has been done. The whole point of anti-competitive legislation and the body which enforces the regulation is not only to ensure than anti-competitive mergers and buy outs don’t occur but to also stop anti-competitive moves from being made by a monopoly, either via exclusive contracts, collusion and any other form of actions which may impeed the the market from working according to its basic principle of supply, demand and letting the market itself decide what is a acceptable price for the service or good which is on offer.
drsmithy as much as I like seeing websites that sell hardware with other os’s installed you are missing the point.
I’m not, I just don’t think “Waa ! Dell won’t sell me a machine with Zeta RC1 preinstalled” a valid complaint.
You pretty much have to go out of your way to get to those places.
A web browser is out of your way ?
I have to go out of my way to buy bottles of my favourite wine, as well. That doesn’t stop me buying it and I certainly wouldn’t expect it to ever be stocked in a regular supermarket or bottle shop.
The point is Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Depot and just about any COMMON place the regular consumer masses will go you cannot get anything without Windows on it.
Yes, that’s because the “regular consumer” wants a Windows PC or a Mac.
Yes that includes local shops and specialized computer sales places. I have yet to see a place within 50 miles of me that will allow me to just buy a PC without Windows on it.
Even if you manage to get a decent pc, hardware support for it with Linux or freebsd is iffy. There is no way I can buy any pc within a decent range of me and know it will probably run alternative os’s well.
Have you ever considered the reason for that is because it isn’t profitable for any of your local business to sell and support non-Windows PCs ?
Besides that how is the ordinary consumer supposed to know about these places?
Same way they’re supposed to know about Windows, Macs and anything else. Advertising or product research.
They will go to the places I mentioned above and look for a good pc (usually means cheap regardless of quality sacrificed) and of course it will have Windows on it. We are talking about places everyone can go and easily obtain PC’s here. I can however find places that will sell me mac’s with no os on it if i want, or there is terrasoft if you want a new/old mac with Linux on it.
The reason behind this is commonly referred to as “supply and demand”.
“That doesn’t make any sense. As a desktop solution, Apple may have a monopoly, however, the issue isn’t whether they have a monopoly but whether they abuse that monopoly and no matter how much you would just love to spin the issue out of proportion, the fact remains that Apple doesn’t abuse its position.”
Tell that to the old Mac clone makers.
The old Mac clone makers were not abused. They signed a contract that didn’t say, “Apple will never make the contract null and void”, they signed a contract agreeing that at ANYTIME Apple felt like pulling the rug from underneeth them, Apple were quite intitled.
What Apple did in 1997 was perfectly legal and with in the parametres of the contract which the clone vendors signed. Apple did not abuse their position, they merely exercised their rights within the sign contracts.
Try and buy a Mac without MacOS.
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/store/index.php?submit=hardware&s…][apple]=1&PHPSESSID=ea84f3638b5867531ed5242cba3d257a
Well blow me done and call me charlie. Its a blooming miracle!
Try and get a copy of OS X without Quicktime.
Why would I want to do that? I would then find that most of my non-quartz based applications will work. That would seem rather pointless bringing that up.
Considering that I never said Media Player was a monopoly or that Microsoft had a monopoly in the server space, you need to re-read what I wrote.
I said that the issue isn’t the player but interoperability. If interoperability was forced so that Real, Apple and Microsoft worked together and allowed each other to license each others formats for free, then the issue would never exist as the end user would simply use the player they wanted without needing to have 3 others installed.
Why should I need to install Real Player just so I can watch some news? why can’t I simply use Quicktime or Windows Media Player.
As I stress again, the issue isn’t the Media Player monopoly but the fact that Microsoft can leverage the media player as a way of pushing themselves onto the server under the banner, “all desktops have our product installed by default, why not simply use out streaming media instead”. If Windows Media supported Real and Quicktime via these two formats being made free of charge to Microsoft, Microsoft could then not use the Media Player as a leverage because if everyone has Media Player installed, they can play any content, meaning, the customer setting up the streaming server is free to decided based on which is superior rather than which is pre-installed by default.
Try and run OS X on anything except an Apple machine.
How is that any different to Microsoft not allowing people to run Office on Linux? the license mearly says that if you run it on your machine, you’re on your own, just as Microsoft says it in their EULA.
Apple behave at _least_ as badly as Microsoft. They’ve just got a much more dedicated fan base and the things they do affect a much smaller group of people.
Dedicated fan base? don’t make me laugh. The moment FreeBSD 5.x is stable on Opteron and the various projects I am interested in improves, I am out of here. I am the last person to be a fan of any company.
The old Mac clone makers were not abused. They signed a contract that didn’t say, “Apple will never make the contract null and void”, they signed a contract agreeing that at ANYTIME Apple felt like pulling the rug from underneeth them, Apple were quite intitled.
A lot of people signed contracts with Microsoft, as well, and that didn’t seem to matter.
Well blow me done and call me charlie. Its a blooming miracle!
“When you purchase an Apple computer from Terra Soft, it will ship with the most current version of Yellow Dog Linux pre-installed. Mac OS X is also pre-installed and may be accessed by holding the OPTION key at boot.”
Why would I want to do that? I would then find that most of my non-quartz based applications will work. That would seem rather pointless bringing that up.
Absolutely no idea. Why would someone want Windows without WMP (or IE, to name another notable complaint) ?
I said that the issue isn’t the player but interoperability. If interoperability was forced so that Real, Apple and Microsoft worked together and allowed each other to license each others formats for free, then the issue would never exist as the end user would simply use the player they wanted without needing to have 3 others installed.
I believe you’ll find the problem is *codecs*, not formats.
Why should I need to install Real Player just so I can watch some news? why can’t I simply use Quicktime or Windows Media Player.
You probably can, if your provider throws out an MPEG stream.
How is that any different to Microsoft not allowing people to run Office on Linux?
It’s not.
the license mearly says that if you run it on your machine, you’re on your own, just as Microsoft says it in their EULA.
Actually the Apple license says you can only run OS X on “Apple branded hardware”.
Dedicated fan base? don’t make me laugh. The moment FreeBSD 5.x is stable on Opteron and the various projects I am interested in improves, I am out of here. I am the last person to be a fan of any company.
You != every Apple user. I don’t think I’ve ever met customers more fanatical about their corporate overlord than Mac zealots.
That’s strange, but I have the impression that a lot of the posters didn’t even read the article, and their opinions are knee-jerk reactions.
I would like to remind some of you that, if the EU is examining MS’s situation today, it’s not because one day some bureaucrat awoke and said: let’s go after Microsoft. There were complaints, my friends. Now, you may consider that those complaints were unjust, but to decide, the EU had to investigate. Certainly, you wouldn’t like it if you had to complain about somebody, went to the sheriff and had him say “I won’t even investigate, you damned whining s…! Just get out of here!”.
They didn’t investigate that other “monopoly”, Apple? Well, why would they do that: nobody complained against Apple!
So the EU investigated. Not if MS had a monopoly in the server market, but if they were abusing their position in the desktop market and using WMP to conquer the server market. And the answer is YES.
I won’t say anything about the eventualpunishments, except maybe about the eventual removing of WMP. I am presently using an OS which didn’t have WMP installed. Guess what? It was functionning perfectly. But one day, I needed WMP. So I downloaded it and installed it and guees what? Everything is working perfectly. I bet Microsoft can do that.
That leads to my last point: we have a problem with the definition of “bundling”. We use that for 2 very different concepts: bundling as giving with, and bundling as tightly integrating into. Is bundling a la Microsoft a technical necessity? A technical progress? I doubt it.
Definition:
(OS) The low-level software which handles the interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the user when no application program is running.
The OS may be split into a kernel which is always present and various system programs which use facilities provided by the kernel to perform higher-level house-keeping tasks, often acting as servers in a client-serverrelationship.
Some would include a graphical user interface and window system as part of the OS, others would not. Theoperating system loader, BIOS, or other firmware required at boot time or when installing the operating system would generally not be considered part of the operating system, though this distinction is unclear in the case of a rommable operating system such as RISC OS.
From hyperdictionary.com
This would tend to satisfy my definition of an operating system. Perhaps your definition is different and includes web browsers, media players etc. At least now you can see where I’m coming from, if you bother to read all of this.
Is bundling a la Microsoft a technical necessity?
That depends entirely upon your definition of “necessity”.
A shell isn’t a “technical necessity”, but most people like to have one.
A technical progress? I doubt it.
You’d be hard pressed to argue reusable, modular components aren’t progress.
(OS) The low-level software which handles the interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the user when no application program is running.
So you wouldn’t consider something like, say, libc part of the Operating System ? How about a TCP/IP stack ? CLI shell ? GUI shell ? Widgets ? Ping ? FTP ? Fsck ? Format ?
Some would include a graphical user interface and window system as part of the OS, others would not.
If you consider a CLI part of the OS then, logically, the GUI must be as well.
The operating system loader, BIOS, or other firmware required at boot time or when installing the operating system would generally not be considered part of the operating system, though this distinction is unclear in the case of a rommable operating system such as RISC OS.
That the OS code is stored in a ROM makes it no less OS code.
This would tend to satisfy my definition of an operating system. Perhaps your definition is different and includes web browsers, media players etc. At least now you can see where I’m coming from, if you bother to read all of this.
I’m willing to accept either of two definitions.
1. The academic definition – which basically ends at the kernel. The definition above pretty much matches this, albeit without the vague “presents a default interface to the user” part.
2. The market definition – which is whatever the people trying to sell you the “OS” says it is.
Anything else is really too subjective and arbitrary to rationally discuss. Witness the number of people who consider a CLI a “part of the OS” but a GUI an “addon”, despite the two having conceptually *identical* roles.
However, whichever definition you pick, you need to stick by it. By the definition you are quoting, something like libc isn’t part of the OS – most people would argue something like it should be. The big problem with definition #1, of course, is that it defines something nearly everyone would consider useless.
Hmmm, nice flamewar….
Here is my view.
Microsoft has a desktop monopoly. I hope we all agree with the legel sense of monopoly (Don’t come and say that because 2% use something else it is by definition not a monopoly. We’re talking legal here…)
Now MS having to rip out their MediaPlayer is indeed silly because everything else remotely resembling an OS comes with a MediaPlayer. So why not Windows. However, because MS is a monopoly, they cannot be allow to extend their monopoly into other area’s, even if they easely could and are indeed trying to do so by using proprietary codecs.
So my solution would be simple. Put in the MediaPlayer (closely linked to the OS and all that)and force them to open the codecs delivered with the base OS install(or use a free one, or develop a crappy one), so that others can also create content that will play in the Player. Next, document its interfaces so that other parties can write their own plugins (eg Divx, MPeg, Sorensen, Real, WMA…) Voilà! MS can say they help the customer by providing a rich and satisfying MultiMedia framework(which is what they claim to want) and they do not push their monopoly position into content creation. Now everybody is happy
So, does anyone see a problem with this?
Microsoft should start pulling out of the EU market just to see what happens. For instance don’t sell Office 2003 in the EU. Let them use Office XP, Star Office whatever. Then don’t release any of the upcoming servers Yukon etc.
Europe wants to go all GNULinux? Let them.
OT: By the way if I am a German citizen do I get to vote for the leaders of the EU? Are there any EU elections?
I hope we all agree with the legel sense of monopoly (Don’t come and say that because 2% use something else it is by definition not a monopoly. We’re talking legal here…)
The problem I have with calling Microsoft a monopoly is there is at _least_ one clear and viable alternative to Windows – and that is Macintosh.
Anyone who would consider replacing Windows with some other OS, is just as capable of switching to Macintosh. Anyone capable of not buying a Windows PC is capable of buying a Mac instead. Pretty much anything you can do on Windows, you can do on a Mac. It’s got heaps of supported commercial software. It is undeniably an alternative.
I cannot fathom why the Mac was not included in the market definition used to define Microsoft’s monopoly market. It does not make sense.
Next, document its interfaces so that other parties can write their own plugins (eg Divx, MPeg, Sorensen, Real, WMA…)
I can already quite happily play media using WMP that uses codecs that *didn’t* ship with Windows, so clearly adding more codecs is not a problem. Indeed, given how awful the Quicktime and Realplayer applications are on Windows, it’d be damn nice if they registered their codecs with WMP.
Indeed, I’m trying to figure out exactly what it is about WMP that all these people want “opened up”. I want to know what it is Realplayer and Quicktime lets them do that WMP doesn’t.
So, does anyone see a problem with this?
If the bit that people want “opened up” is the codec, then yes. Codecs are big bikkies in terms of intellectual property – a *lot* of money and work goes into researching and creating them.
IBM fvcked up majorly. But then IBMers are that good when it comes to going to the consumer field. They deliberately killed off OS/2.
They didn’t deliberately kill it, they just never really tried to sell it to anyone except corporate customers until it was basically too late.
They also didn’t help their developers anywhere near as much as Microsoft did.
It’s not Microsoft’s fault, it’s IBMs. Everybody would be multitasking by now.
Huh ?
That’s fine, let’s stick to the market definition then. Earlier, you said that Microsoft is simply giving the customers what they want with an (integrated) media player. Are the people represented by the EU not considered customers? The market is speaking and the product/service provider is not really listening. What a wonderful business practice.
You’d be hard pressed to argue reusable, modular components aren’t progress.
I won’t argue that. But I would argue that integrating components in the OS in such a way that it is impossible to take them out makes the OS or the components modular.
Yes, I agree – nice flamewar, strange how friendly debates always seem to go that way eventually. You’d think this was politics or religion.
The funny thing is, throughout most of this last night I was installing Windows XP on a new PC. And I installed WMP9…
I guess the bottom line (for me) is that it is about choice. I was able to choose to install WMP9.
Earlier, you said that Microsoft is simply giving the customers what they want with an (integrated) media player. Are the people represented by the EU not considered customers?
I would propose that the vast majority of complaints aren’t along the lines of “I don’t like the way Microsoft lets me watch movies with their operating system”.
Managers and beaurocrats don’t speak for the people, customers do – with their wallets.
I won’t argue that. But I would argue that integrating components in the OS in such a way that it is impossible to take them out makes the OS or the components modular.
I challenge you to remove bits of any componentised system without breaking things that rely on them.
I’m not sure where you live, but my politicians speak for me. That’s why I elect them. I’m sure that these folks in the EU just didn’t dream this up.
And as far as people speaking with their wallets, of the folks I personally know who run Windows, only about 1 percent ‘spoke with their wallets’ and intentionally bought the software. The rest either use it because it came with the PC, or the software is stolen. Sounds like a vocal minority to me.
I’m sure if Manik had the resources of Microsoft and the power to do so, he’d have no trouble doing what you suggest with Windows. A lot of bright minds work there you know.
They can do whatever they want to do with their software. It is only a matter of whether they want to do it.
I’m not sure where you live, but my politicians speak for me. That’s why I elect them. I’m sure that these folks in the EU just didn’t dream this up.
I don’t know where you live, but I don’t get a say in every decision my politicians make. Some of their decisions I agree with, some of them I do not.
And as far as people speaking with their wallets, of the folks I personally know who run Windows, only about 1 percent ‘spoke with their wallets’ and intentionally bought the software. The rest either use it because it came with the PC, or the software is stolen. Sounds like a vocal minority to me.
Perhaps they should have bought PCs without Windows, or Macs, if this was an important issue to them.
I’m sure if Manik had the resources of Microsoft and the power to do so, he’d have no trouble doing what you suggest with Windows. A lot of bright minds work there you know.
If software relies on WMP being there and WMP is not, then it won’t work as intended – ie: it will break. This is inescapable.
But they are not asking to buy a PC without Windows. They are asking to buy a PC with Windows without WMP. Subtle distinction. Don’t change the subject.
And yes, you are right, if the software relies on WMP and it isn’t there it will break. And the third party developer should be aware of the change in Windows (if it happened) and adjust for that. Windows XP doesn’t ship with DX9b installed. The latest video card drivers do, or will, require it in order to run. It is up to the third party manufacturers to ensure that their software either checks for DX or at least informs the customer.
… manages all the other programs in a computer. The other programs are called applications or application programs. See http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212714,00.html
Since WMP does not participate in the management of applications, it is also an application.
“Then you obviously aren’t looking very hard.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/directory/Hardware/PCs_with_Linux_prelo…..
http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html
http://www.serasystems.com
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/hardware.html ”
Nice try. I said stores, not online dealers. I’m talking Circuit City, Fry’s etc. Place you can walk in, not have to hope that the postal service gets it there in one piece, not places which may or may not take your money and run. You asked what the problem was, and I said not enough choice. I did’t say it was impossible to get other operating systems, only that it is more difficult than it should be. The problem, despite your spiel, still exists.
“The problem I have with calling Microsoft a monopoly is there is at _least_ one clear and viable alternative to Windows – and that is Macintosh. ”
Any marketshare of 75% or greater is commonly considered a monopoly by lawyers.
“Any marketshare of 75% or greater is commonly considered a monopoly by lawyers.”
In that case the American Bar Assoc. is a monopoly.
But they are not asking to buy a PC without Windows. They are asking to buy a PC with Windows without WMP. Subtle distinction. Don’t change the subject.
I didn’t. You’re bouncing between whoever-it-is that has made complaints to the EU and the people you know who have bought Windows.
And yes, you are right, if the software relies on WMP and it isn’t there it will break. And the third party developer should be aware of the change in Windows (if it happened) and adjust for that. Windows XP doesn’t ship with DX9b installed. The latest video card drivers do, or will, require it in order to run. It is up to the third party manufacturers to ensure that their software either checks for DX or at least informs the customer.
Whether or not the third party developer can check for a present or missing media player is completely irrelevant to the issue of shipping a “substandard product”.
… manages all the other programs in a computer. The other programs are called applications or application programs. See http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212714,00.html
Since WMP does not participate in the management of applications, it is also an application.
By that logic a CLI or GUI doesn’t participate in the management of applications either, would you consider them part of the OS ? How about a TCP/IP stack ? SMB client ? Standard C library ?
Nice try. I said stores, not online dealers. I’m talking Circuit City, Fry’s etc. Place you can walk in, not have to hope that the postal service gets it there in one piece, not places which may or may not take your money and run.
And they exist. One of my local whitebox vendors will happily sell me a machine with Linux on it if I ask.
You asked what the problem was, and I said not enough choice.
You’ve got loads of choice. However, shops are not required – nor should they be – to stock any random product you want them to. If you’re dealing with relatively unpopular products, you often have to look a little harder than the nearest megamart to find them.
I did’t say it was impossible to get other operating systems, only that it is more difficult than it should be. The problem, despite your spiel, still exists.
The “problem” – that your local vendors don’t stock products they don’t think they can sell – exists because of textbook economics. Stuff all demand ? Then stuff all supply.
Yes, you did change the subject. We were not talking about people in the EU wanting to buy PC’s without Windows. We were talking about people in the EU wanting to buy PC’s with Windows without WMP. But you said they could have bought PC’s without Windows. The EU’s complaint was that they wanted to buy PC’s with Windows without WMP. See the difference?
Then by your logic, as Windows XP does not ship with the required DX drivers for all future video cards, it must be a substandard product even if the third party fails to inform the user. Sole responsibility for the functioning of aftermarket software falls to Microsoft.
Yes, you did change the subject. We were not talking about people in the EU wanting to buy PC’s without Windows. We were talking about people in the EU wanting to buy PC’s with Windows without WMP. But you said they could have bought PC’s without Windows. The EU’s complaint was that they wanted to buy PC’s with Windows without WMP. See the difference?
I was responding to:
And as far as people speaking with their wallets, of the folks I personally know who run Windows, only about 1 percent ‘spoke with their wallets’ and intentionally bought the software.
I’d like to see some of these *customer’s* complaints as well.
Then by your logic, as Windows XP does not ship with the required DX drivers for all future video cards, it must be a substandard product even if the third party fails to inform the user.
There are only two ways this would be true.
1. Microsoft say they’re going to ship DX drivers for all future video cards and don’t (thus setting the “standard” to be “sub” to); or
2. Most competitor’s products ship with an equivalent (thus setting the “standard” to be “sub” to).
Sole responsibility for the functioning of aftermarket software falls to Microsoft.
No, it does not. Microsoft’s responsibility is to provide the product they said they were going to. If they don’t, *then* it’s their problem.
Yes, and I was responding to you when you said:
‘I would propose that the vast majority of complaints aren’t along the lines of “I don’t like the way Microsoft lets me watch movies with their operating system”.
Managers and beaurocrats don’t speak for the people, customers do – with their wallets.’
This is when I referred to the people I know, and was making a fairly logical jump that people in the EU might have similar purchasing habits, just as you made that assumption about EU managers, beaurocrats, and customers. Since neither of us knows every customer everywhere, I thought it was fair to draw a parallel.
And if Microsoft ships a product without WMP, as long as they state that up front, it is not substandard, is it? It only requires the developers to be aware of that fact and work around it.