Home > Windows > Microsoft to rename media player-less Windows Microsoft to rename media player-less Windows Eugenia Loli 2005-03-28 Windows 34 Comments Microsoft will rename a product it was ordered by the European Commission to offer–a version of Windows with its media player removed. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 34 Comments 2005-03-28 7:23 pm Great, yet another generic term Microsoft will take. How long until they start suing people for including the words “Media Player” in their wares??? 2005-03-28 7:41 pm Windows XP Home (Professional) Edition *N* = Windows XP Home (Professional) Edition *Not* 2005-03-28 8:29 pm Could Microsoft make their product names any longer? But do you really count this as a name change? I mean they just added the letter ‘N’. Why can’t they call it the same, but on the packaging just put a nice label that says – Windows Media Player is not included. Windows XP Home N, Windows XP Professional N, ugh. They can’t even be creative with their product names. 2005-03-28 8:42 pm I am sure we can come up with a better name here perhaps: Windows XP Ignorant Euro Edition Windows XP US Software companies suck edition Windows XP Reduced IQ edition 2005-03-28 8:59 pm This is really unfortunate. Windows Media PLayer was included in Windows 3.x, and in subsequent releases of the OS since then. It was shipped with Windows long before companies like Real even existed. And now Microsoft is forced to exclude it from Windows XP? I can’t believe this ruling passed in the first place. 2005-03-28 9:03 pm the could name it Lindows. 2005-03-28 9:38 pm Reduced spyware edition. Really, the EU should have forced MS to disintegrate the core system from needless components which should be installable only after the sysinstall is finished, and then only at the users discretion. It’s not a holistic eXPerience for MS, but then, who cares about what they want? 2005-03-28 9:50 pm Windows Media PLayer was included in Windows 3.x, and in subsequent releases of the OS since then.. …and still I never used it for playing back anything (when I was forced to use Windows – school assignments ; work). I always used 3rd party software for that. Why should I be paying for something I do not use? In my country, it is actually illegal to force you buy product “A” with product “B”. You cannot say “I will sell you A only, if you buy B as well”. 2005-03-28 10:01 pm you could actually delete media player by deleting the .exe do that today and the whole os would probably fall to it’s knees. 2005-03-28 10:38 pm MS can’t call it Windows XP Reduced Media Edition because it’s too honest and people would be put off buying it. So antitrust want them to add a subtle suffix to the name Windows so people will inadvertantly buy it not realising it has reduced media abilities. Seriously the antitrust argument is the most rediculous thing I have heard in a long time! 2005-03-28 11:20 pm MS can’t call it Windows XP Reduced Media Edition because it’s too honest and people would be put off buying it. So antitrust want them to add a subtle suffix to the name Windows so people will inadvertantly buy it not realising it has reduced media abilities. Right, I read it as Microsoft came back with a title implying that it’s inferior, in an attempt to get people to buy the “more capable” version. The antitrust regulators saw through this and wanted them to rename it to something else. The new name is pure marketing, I agree, but doesn’t imply much about capability one way or another. 2005-03-29 12:36 am Wouldn’t that be honest and accurate? Honestly, with the number of persons who either have or know someone who has broadband Internet, it would only be a minor inconvenience to even the most hopeless user. It’s not as if Windows Media Player is so superior to all the alternatives or has something unique – besides being a M$ product. There was a time when Windows didn’t have a capable firewall installed and it still doesn’t have a built in virus scanner. So why didn’t they call it Windows Insecure Target Edition? 2005-03-29 3:20 am So I’m not the only one noticing this. Let’s go over this one more time: 1. Microsoft is forced to release a WMP-less edition of Windows XP by the EU, becuase of the antitrust case 2. They name it Reduced Media Edition 3. The RME is renamed to the ‘N’ edition 4. The EU doesn’t like the name, because it is too honest and they want Microsoft to fool people into buying the ‘N’ edition I guess we all learned an important lesson today from the EU: Don’t be honest to your customers! There was a time when Windows didn’t have a capable firewall installed and it still doesn’t have a built in virus scanner. There would be a time when Windows would have all those, but as you can see they would probably be forced to remove them, because of abuse of monopoly powers. Just look at the Microsoft Anti Spyware scanner – how much contraversy it’s causing (especially from Norton). Now imagine Microsoft bundles a competitive anti virus application with Longhorn. Either Norton would go nuts or sue them. I’m still waiting for someone to sue them over dropping Win32 with Longhorn 2005-03-29 3:35 am Why don’t they push for a Windows XP Without IE Edition! I would buy that, the system would probably be more secure 2005-03-29 4:56 am Somebody please explain to me why Microsoft can’t name a product whatever the hell it wants, as long as it’s does not infringe on anybody else’s trademark or copyright? This is clearly a case of an out of control government. 2005-03-29 5:00 am I find it rather amusing how people even bitch about product names that Microsoft have. If you are going to bitch about Microsoft atleast do it on something meaningful! 2005-03-29 7:22 am The EU has forced the rename because MS had chosen a name that specifically made the product less appealing to the customer, thus defeating (at least in part) the purpose of the ruling. On the “why remove wmp” well, Real Inc. (a US based company) started it all, and the problem is not really that MS bundles WMP, but that you _CANNOT UNINSTALL IT_. Either at home or, more importantly, as a OEM. Suppose Real contacts a OEM producer and says: bundle Real10 in the base install of your desktop PC. The OEM _could_ be interested in the deal, but if they can’t remove WMP will not make it. OEMs do not like to pay for both products, and providing more than one roughly equivalent program to the customer does not make really sense either (out of the box, at least). 2005-03-29 10:21 am Eugenia, I think isn’t fair microsoft remove media player from their windows XP, when we all know that linux distros have all sorts of applications installed by default, including media players, openoffice’s, etc. and not only the operating system as they wanted in windows xp, and nobody talk about this… I think, that after the process finishes, microsoft should open a process against linux distros and against open source in general especially GNU licence, using as argument, the european process, that says that microsoft should remove windows media player from windows xp. 2005-03-29 10:33 am This decisions are rediculous. I think they need to make a referendum, I will be one of that will vote “I want windows media player with windows XP”, and it would be great if they could also distribute in the future, the office XP in windows XP As the process seems to go, I think microsoft could also distribute the windows media player as another product in the same box in windows xp and continue to make available windows media player in their website as they do now. I’m really sad how process is rolling, and I think france is starting to make a economic war with US by doing this, I really want to know what will be US response to this. 2005-03-29 11:00 am AFAIU the reduced media edition is not going to be any cheaper… The question is – whom does EU govt protect – people or real inc.? I’d like to see smth. like windows base edition – w/o media player, IE, OE, windows networking (tcp/ip only please), remote assistance, terminal services and other useless and insecure crap. Though, without artificial limitations of starter edition. And with appropriate price. That should be enough to run games, surf web with ff, watch movies using whatever player one prefers, and use OOo. And that is smth. that will never happen even in EU, because they do not think about consumers, corporations only. 2005-03-29 11:36 am I’ve seen on simple chip components that N is sometimes added for a reduced version… it is curious, perhaps a coincidence? Anyway, we always called it ‘Nobbled’ version. Windows XP Home Nobbled Edition! 2005-03-29 11:45 am At least the EU actually does something. For all those who moan about it: what has the US done about the monopoly of Microsoft, about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and the Media Player with Windows? Indeed, nothing, in each case nothing more than Microsoft paying some money as settlement, also nothing substantial. 2005-03-29 11:49 am 1) Because linux distries do not have monopoly powers. You are not allowed to do some things when you have a monopoly in some market (like for example trying to expand that monopoly from operating systems to media players by bundling both systems together) 2) Because the programs a linux distro “bundles” into it’s system are gratis, so every competitor can provide the same programs for the same licensing cost (zero). The bundling does not destroy a competitiors chances in the market. 2005-03-29 12:20 pm I’ve mixed feelings about this names… It’s GOOD to have the option to buy these products without something you don’t want. But names are really about knowing WHAT you are buying… I do feel sorry for the ones buying these editions and not getting something they want (and these editions should be about adding choice, shouldn’t they?)… In the end, it’s always about politics… not about more choice, options and freedom… 2005-03-29 1:52 pm and 3) you can uninstall every single application from your distribution. 4) you can in most cases re-distribute a version with different default installs of the distribution. No one is forcing you to use some ugly and malfunctional media player. 2005-03-29 2:06 pm The EU has forced the rename because MS had chosen a name that specifically made the product less appealing to the customer, thus defeating (at least in part) the purpose of the ruling. Well, to that people who want WMP pre-installed, IT IS LESS APPEALING. As long as this product is available in the market, the name given to it is not defeating its purpose for it being there. That is one of the stupidest claims I’ve ever seen. Consumers aren’t total idiots as you and the EU government seem to thing they are. 2005-03-29 2:31 pm Since when can a bunch of gov’t losers tell a company what it can or can’t name its own product? 2005-03-29 2:33 pm How about Windows Crippled Edition. 2005-03-29 4:05 pm I’m really sad how process is rolling, and I think france is starting to make a economic war with US by doing this, I really want to know what will be US response to this. Don’t expect any retribution for this specifically the economic war started along time ago with the purposeful devaulation of the US Dollar due to the fair weather friendship France and other european countries have shown when it really counted. At least the EU actually does something. For all those who moan about it: what has the US done about the monopoly of Microsoft, about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and the Media Player with Windows? Indeed, nothing, in each case nothing more than Microsoft paying some money as settlement, also nothing substantial. SO your saying a very stupid something is better then nothing? In my opinion the reason nothing was “done” to Microsoft is that they didn’t have a monopoly in the true definition of the word. Unlike the AT&T monopoly of the 80’s where your choice was having a phone or not having a phone period. You can still have a computer With windows or without or you can have a Mac or a Unix workstation etc.. the point being no one has ever forced you to have a windows computer. The whole EU anti-trust thing is about getting money out of the richest company on the planet and nothing else the mentality that “they can afford it”. 2005-03-29 5:17 pm Since when can a bunch of gov’t losers tell a company what it can or can’t name its own product? Since the EU is socialist and decided that its citizens are children and too stupid to make independent decisions. 2005-03-29 5:39 pm “N” stands for neutered of course… 2005-03-29 9:11 pm won’t work a. linux is modular, you can remove anything you would like b. linux is already disturbuted in pure (kernel) form 2005-03-29 10:16 pm …uh… and the wmp-less version is more appealing for those that already use (for example) an iPod and iTunes (and iTMS), and would not touch WMP with a three yard stick. So what? 2005-03-29 11:59 pm …when lawyers get themselves involved in software development. Total f*cking circus.