Microsoft’s last-ditch talks aimed at reaching a settlement with the European Union and avoiding antitrust action have failed, paving the way for a landmark legal ruling next week.
EU, Microsoft Fail to Agree on Deal
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Oh look the EU is falling on hard times and needs some monitary gain, well who do they goto of course the worlds punching bag for money. Microsoft.
I personally am glad that they refused the settlement because Microsoft needs to have antitrust action taken against them. Tying things like the media player int the system is not given the consumer the choice to chose their own media player. This has been taken on time after time in different contexts. I hope EU wins this legal action.
“Oh look the EU is falling on hard times and needs some monitary gain, well who do they goto of course the worlds punching bag for money. Microsoft.”
Or you could say “Oh look the EU is doing alright as they successfully resisted the temptation to accept Ballmer’s bribes and empty assurances and decided instead to do what the ‘worlds most powerful nation and figurehead for democracy’ couldn’t do which is uphold the law and punish a corporate criminal to an appropriate degree”.
(Not an anti-american statement BTW – in fact pretty pro-american for a european – but they did ‘drop the ball’ in this particular case)
You said;
the worlds punching bag for money. Microsoft.
I think you have that backwards. It should say:
The World, Microsofts punching bag of money.
If Microsoft would be treated differently if it were a european corporation.
Sure MS uses their market lead in sometimes a doubtful way… but equal should be equal… so I do hope Lindows, Red Hat and others are not allowed to include a media player in their install neither….
Fair should be fair…. if just people could get ruled out for the right reasons I’d be happy… this is pure punishment, exactly the low level crap MS been doing all this time..
Pathetic
Of course. Why do you think Microsoft got off so easily in the US? Because we were in the middle of a recession, and nobody wanted to mess with them. I am, however, not idealistic enough to object to the EU’s actions. The right thing is happening, even if its not being done entirely for the right reasons.
“Sure MS uses their market lead in sometimes a doubtful way… but equal should be equal… so I do hope Lindows, Red Hat and others are not allowed to include a media player in their install neither….”
Including a media player is not the issue. The fact that the OS can not be installed without installing the media player is the issue. If MS allowed that, then there would not be a problem. As MS has stated themselves, media player is an integral part of the OS and can not be removed. That is a problem. With Lindows, RedHat, and others the choice is there and the media player can be removed without affecting the system as it is seperate. See the difference?
And now the facts: the EU will, and has done so numerous times in the past, also punish European companies if they break antitrust laws. A complete list of antitrust cases from 1964 is here http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases . And to give a nice example: in the cases so far in 2004 http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_even…, all of the listed companies are European.
ok so this post is stolen from slashdot but maby it answers your question
First of all the title and the message of this thread is factually incorrect. It should have read European Commission instead of European Union. Apparently, news.com.com has their title wrong too. That doesn’t mean you are OK when you blindly copy/paste it.
Second they act because of complaints _from_ US companies.
This all explained in this post: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=6351&limit=no#211465
and thanks to dizz for pointing out these other URL’s; great references.
Third: anyone whined that the Dutch-British Shell company got investigated by SEC? That’s an anti-European act? Yes? Following this Great Logic posted here, it should be *ahem*. The Japanese have raided Microsoft Japan office because of anti competitive behaviour (regarding OEM’s; other subject than this one, same subject on the wider picture). They must be anti US too!!1!11 *ahem*.
Fourth, my personal view is that i wish all anti-competitive groups, whatever country they’re from (i don’t care a rat), a heavy prosecution including jailtime for their executives. I bett that last aspect will put them off because when i look to underground criminality the big fishes have their paperboy’s who do the dirty work. They themselves try to be invulnerable and try to clean the paths too them. You gotta grab the roots, not the leafs. Nobody cares for yet another Islam fundi-terrorist, Iraqi soldier or US soldier either; it’s just a number. The real executives of these people are what matters, those who control the game being played.
Well just to make things clear, a definition from the horses mouth :
“The European Commission is a body with powers of initiative, implementation, management and control. It is the guardian of the Treaties and the embodiment of the interests of the Community. It is composed of twenty independent members (two each from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom and one each from all the other countries), including a President and two Vice-Presidents. It is appointed for a five-year term by the Council, acting by qualified majority in agreement with the Member States. It is subject to a vote of appointment by the European Parliament, to which it is answerable. The Commissioners are assisted by an administration made up of directorates-general and specialised departments whose staff are divided mainly between Brussels and Luxembourg.”
Or simply put this is the executive branch of the European Union.
Not an MS basher but difference between MS and others is that though they include media players, they do give us a choice of some of them and don’t include anyone, other thing they ask us what to install and not to, they have an option of uninstallign what we dont like ok. And can you imagine uninstalling WMP or IE from windows? it’s so tightly integrated into the system that it can not be removed. Take another example. To discourage other browsers, MS uses on IE for it’s windows update. If you want to update using other browsers, then you have to download updates one by one and manually install it! is that not unfair? is that not killing competition? why should OS be tied to Software in the first place. Linux is not certainly. take any app and Linux can do without it and also gives you plenty of options at install time of installing them or even not!
“I personally am glad that they refused the settlement because Microsoft needs to have antitrust action taken against them. Tying things like the media player int the system is not given the consumer the choice to chose their own media player. This has been taken on time after time in different contexts. I hope EU wins this legal action.”
The customer can *always* choose to use their own media player. The core functionality of WMP is part of the OS services just like Quicktime is on the Mac. Other applications *use* WMP functionality just as they use IE. Removing wil break third party apps. I hope that the EU loses, since it’s a childish argument on their and your part.
Not an MS basher but difference between MS and others is that though they include media players, they do give us a choice of some of them and don’t include anyone, other thing they ask us what to install and not to, they have an option of uninstallign what we dont like ok. And can you imagine uninstalling WMP or IE from windows? it’s so tightly integrated into the system that it can not be removed.
This is an interesting point. In the US antitrust case, this is exactly what MS had to prove to avoid regulation. In the US, their violation was bundling the software with the OS to gain market share in the market of that software by riding the OS monopoly. If the browser (or in this case the media player) is integrated into the OS and cannot be removed without a negative impact on the system, then they did nothing wrong in the US. If the EU is saying something different, notably that integrating the software is anticompetetive, then MS is in a Catch-22.
Take another example. To discourage other browsers, MS uses on IE for it’s windows update. If you want to update using other browsers, then you have to download updates one by one and manually install it! is that not unfair? is that not killing competition? why should OS be tied to Software in the first place.
Windows Update uses ActiveX controls that don’t work in other browsers (because afaik most ActiveX controls don’t work in other browsers). The only real way around this would be for them to distribute an update application that must be run on the client side (rather than simply a website that you can visit), and which would have to be downloaded to those computers that shipped without it (since Windows Update didn’t exist when Win98 shipped, yet it works with Win98). Would they then be tying this new application to the OS simply because no one else can do the same thing? More than likely, and the first thing they’d have to do to remedy the situation is release the network interface that the program relies on.
Linux is not certainly. take any app and Linux can do without it and also gives you plenty of options at install time of installing them or even not!
Linux is in a different ballpark. Every distribution tends to come with a different method for updating it’s components, and many of them are incompatible. In some cases the update method is half the reason for the distribution’s existence (Gentoo).
Most of what makes IE indespensible on Windows is not IE itself, but rather the libraries that it uses. IE’s a tiny little program that exists as a wrapper for those libraries with little of it’s own functionality. Windows Update uses those libraries, and IE is the only wrapper that’s consistently available and completely compatible. There are plenty of other applications out there that use other libraries that are used by IE, and adding IE on top of that is a minimal issue. The real issue is that people want to be able to rip out those libraries and replace them with someone else’s libraries (ie Mozilla). The reality is that very few people get that kind of thing right, even in Linux, otherwise we’d see far more adoption of GUIs that use whatever toolkit is currently in use on your system, rather than simply being tied to one (ie GTK, Qt, or even Win32/GDI or Windows.Forms)
“The core functionality of WMP is part of the OS services just like Quicktime is on the Mac.”
Please, MS is quibbling over a minor detail. Taking out the WMP is no big deal for them, they just don’t like to budge on anything. There is nothing in Windows that requires WMP, they simply enjoy smashing small competitors like WinAmp and Real. Same old song and dance for them.
Great ! MS will be punished on entire world except USA after this.
MS should be forced to remove Windows Media and Internet Explorer of Windows, even if they are little wrappers os libraries. The would have to sell or give separately like other browsers and media players.
But MS is an evil empire and it is trying to destroy Java and other languages with your .Net architecture.
People may understand that when you use a product made by only one company, who owns more than 90% of desktop market, it is BAD and the only one way out is to use another Operating System.
For outside of USA, there is another factor: MS is not a true multinational company; it is an american company with some business offices on other countries. All development is made in USA and Ireland ( translation to many languages). Microsoft represents only dollars going out of countries. It is different of a Ford or GM factory on a country, for example This is the reason why Linux is being promoved officially by governments.
“Windows Update uses ActiveX controls that don’t work in other browsers (because afaik most ActiveX controls don’t work in other browsers). The only real way around this would be for them to distribute an update application that must be run on the client side………….”
How about making a standards-compliant website for
downloading the damn updates? is that so terribly difficult?
So how does bundling WMP prevent anybody from installing another media player? It doesn’t. Did the bundling of IE and its associated libraries with the OS somehow prevent me from installing Firebird? Nope. Does it matter if the libraries are still there even if you don’t use any programs that use them? No.
So what’s really going on here? Basically what you have is that the EU needs a legal precedence for further regulation of Microsoft’s business practices. This is really just the beginning. Once they have a legal ruling against Microsoft this opens up all sorts of interesting possiblities for further action. In the end, it’s just politics. I’m just surprised that this EU commission was so lame that they couldn’t come up with something better than complaining about the bundling of WMP. They must be pretty desperate if that’s the best they can come up with.
I think this quote by Monti sums things up quite accurately:
“In the end, I had do decide what was best for competition and consumers in Europe. I believe they will be better served with a decision that creates a strong precedent”.
How typical of a EU bureaucrat. The consumer is too stupid to decide what is best for him or herself.
“Sure MS uses their market lead in sometimes a doubtful way… but equal should be equal… so I do hope Lindows, Red Hat and others are not allowed to include a media player in their install neither…. ”
To me, the big difference is not so much that Linux distro’s include multiple players, but that these are players written by *other* companies.
And, you can use virtually all Linux programs on other Unices including the Mac and a lot of them work on Windows too, albeit that you might need an X-server running.
None of the OSS programs are tied to one vendor nor tied to one OS nor are they tied to one distributor.
The Unix world really is a competitive on all levels. OSes can compete with one another because the software that runs on top is not tied to the OS. Software written for Solaris can easily be ported to AIX or Linux, so it is very easy (and common) for software vendors to target multiple Unix versions.
You really can’t compare such an open and competitive market to the situation around Microsoft, where you have one company writing, bundling and distributing one tightly coupled set of programs without any real competition.
I use winamp for music and media player classic for the video, I downloaded and installed WMP9 for the codecs and plus because it is better than WMP8, but I don’t use it anyway, just the codecs :b
and _that_ is the reason they can’t include e.g a mediaplayer.
If they include some application that 90% of ‘stupid’ users will use by default, they got a major advantage.
So the basic idea is that _any_ company that got a too big marketshare should get their company and products splittet up.
A software counceling team should watch over softwaredevelopment, and take action when a piece of software gets has a very large share of the market.
Then the softwareproduct should be splitted up into the core piece, and other pieces and sold ‘seperated’.
So in the case of Windows, Microsoft would still release the core of windows which support all programs.
Another software company (Microsoft II) will sell Internet Explorer, Mediaplayer and messenger.
The trick is that Microsoft must not give secret information about the core to Microsoft II without giving it to everyone (with or without payment).
So everybody can make a distribution consisting of Microsoft Core, and all programs that integrates well with each other and the core.
The ie engine can’t be removed. Period. In xp, the same libraries used to browse pages are used for html files. They are also used to connect to ms servers for wmp. Again, in help and support under xp, the search function connects to the internet so that you can view knowledge base articles for support. You just can’t remove the files that are a part of ie because ie isn’t the only ones using them. If you go back a few years to when html help files were coming out, you would see that ie 4 is required even though you would never use ie. That’s because ie updated the same files as html help.
Many people think ms is lying when they say ie can’t be completely removed from windows. The wrapper itself can be removed, but a lot of other system components use html and web browsing components. HTML is simply a part of windows.
As MS has stated themselves, media player is an integral part of the OS and can not be removed. That is a problem. With Lindows, RedHat, and others the choice is there and the media player can be removed without affecting the system as it is seperate. See the difference?
You can remove access to wmp in xp at least, even remove the exe file itself, so what’s wrong with that? If you want to remove all components wmp uses, then you would also be killing directx. It’s more complicated than you think.
MS can’t simply remove wmp that easily. WMP shares some stuff with directx.
“Does it matter if the libraries are still there even if you don’t use any programs that use them? No.”
It does. Dot. Go figure it out yourself. Install Windows 98. Take your stopwatch and see how long it takes till it is finally booted up. Then, remove MSIE with some special patch. Clock it again, and voila, it is a whole lot faster. (I have read ridiculous numbers about this, it was incredible, but haven’t confirmed these numbers myself). Yet, when you’d like to have your system secure now, you can’t because you need MSIE to use Windows Update.
“I’m just surprised that this EU commission was so lame that they couldn’t come up with something better than complaining about the bundling of WMP. They must be pretty desperate if that’s the best they can come up with.”
Read the earlier explanations stated: Real and Apple filed compliants. Have you even bothered to read the other posts here?
“The consumer is too stupid to decide what is best for him or herself.”
Act -> React. Microsoft decides, what?
Hey, Dos boots up fast. I guess the EU should force that on people. Stay on topic. Boot time has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Read the earlier explanations stated: Real and Apple filed compliants. Have you even bothered to read the other posts here?
Surprise, surprise. I guess I should file a complaint too because Microsoft isn’t include RoyBatty’s Super Duper media player.
It does. Dot. Go figure it out yourself. Install Windows 98. Take your stopwatch and see how long it takes till it is finally booted up. Then, remove MSIE with some special patch. Clock it again, and voila, it is a whole lot faster. (I have read ridiculous numbers about this, it was incredible, but haven’t confirmed these numbers myself).
MS can’t guarantee that this won’t break other apps, can they? I’ve removed ie myself from 98se on my older computer, and yes it was faster, but that’s because html was disabled. It can be insanely fast, but you’re going to remove a ton of functionality. At that point, it really isn’t windows, it’s just the kernel. Don’t say that microsoft should just package the windows kernel and sell that.
In the end, all ms needs to do is remove access to ie and wmp for default installations.
I am not much of a Microsoft fan. My Windows box is just a game machine, and my primary computer is a Mac Powerbook. I also feel their tactic of forcing OEMs to install their stuff or pay extra for Windows licenses was unlawful bullying.
But, I really don’t understand why Microsoft can’t integrate whatever they please with their OS. How is it unfair that they integrate Media Player? Sure, it sucks for some people and competing companies, but why should Microsoft have to change? Isn’t it their product?
If a company created a CD recorder that only uses their patented CDs, would that be unfair because now the user can only buy from that company, rather than other blank media companies?
What if Ford put chips in their cars so you couldn’t buy a new car stereo from anyone but Ford? Is that illegal? The third party car audio companies won’t like it, but is it actually illegal?
Windows is Microsoft’s product, and unless the contents of that product themselves break the law, I’d think Microsoft has the right to do whatever they want with it, regardless of whether Real or Apple or whomever else likes it.
I like “integration”. It’s one of the few things I’ll commend about Microsoft products. That MS continually makes more and more essential “components” free and integrated with the OS is fine by me.
Yes, they “may” be a monopoly, but in the end, I’d prefer all OS’es to have some kind standard and “generic” toolkit right out of the box. Sun does it, Apple does it, IBM does it, Palm does it — and they aren’t monopolies. So how is it any different for Microsoft?
Real and WinAmp somewhat fail because they charge for applications which are “essential”. It’s not just Microsoft’s “greed”, it’s their greed as well. The only one I know of that isn’t crippled and offers something worth choosing over WMP is iTunes, for the MP3 encoder, the Store, and of course the iPod.
The same goes for Netscape, Eudora, or whoever else is in the business of selling “necessary” apps. And the same thing will happen to Firewall products when MS releases Service Pack 2. And I bet sooner or later: CD Burner and Anti-Virus products, etc., etc..
and it would check for what you currenltly have installed on your computer using JavaScript? No, ActveX lets MS do anything on your computer so that makes the uipgrade as painful as possible.
@Malacoda: read about anti-trust laws, you can’t whatever you want with your product, you can’t use a monoply (which IS legal to have) to gain another monopoly, you can’t underprice your product (dumping), raise your prices artificially (price fixing). You can’t just do whatever you want.. the rules are that you have to play nice and let the invisible hand (ie Adam Smith’s) do the magic it does. Otherwise Ford would give out cars for free until every other company would go otu of buisness and then charge you through the nose once they were alone and merely reply “it was our product, we didn’t hurt anybody.” Capitalism != Anarchy (close, but not =)
I hope that the EU loses, since it’s a childish argument on their and your part.
RTFA. Microsoft has lost.
You can already download the updates from Windows update without IE. You only need to visit the following URL:
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default.asp?corporate=true
It works with diffrend browsers then IE, but fails to work for me on Linux with Opera 7.50 TP3.
Anyway… it works on Windows.
cheers
SteveB
Microsoft should be allowed to integrate what they want. It’s their product. Because of their marketshare, they have become something like a utility. So, OEMs should be allowed to customize Windows by loading whatever 3rd party software they want, but not to remove anything. MS should still provide support for Windows, and the other software makers should support their own software. All the APIs and file formats for the platform should be opened up as well. That way important innovations, like a Netscape, that get to market first, would be more difficult for MS to destroy. However, such a punishment is difficult to enforce, requiring a certain willingness on MS’s part to comply.
What ever your respective OS is, you as being the consumer should have some control over what you bought. If you don’t like Windows Media Player then you should have the option of uninstalling it and installing an alternative. With out causing any damage to the OS or IE. When I was using Windows XP Pro last year one of my complaints I had was how Windows apps and the OS overrode my settings.
Issue #1: I disabled Media Player to use an alternate player but MP always seemed to override my settings and defaulted back to Windows software only. Even when using iTunes that was a pain because frequently I would find Media Player overriding my set up for iTunes to be my default player. Why won’t M$ allow me to use a competitors software?
Issue #2: Updating or installing programs such as MSN Messenger. I updated to 6.1 but XP would not allow me to remove the basic messenger 4.7 that came with XP. M$ for some reason felt it was necessary to integrate MSN 4.7 into Outlook. What if I wanted to use a competitors Messenger?
Issue #3: Windows users are well aware of the security concerns with IE and the OS due to holes/back doors and virus attacks. Doing a little research I was shocked to see that M$ purchases competitor companies such as those that distribute security software and then does nothing with them. Such tactics as stopping the company from selling their software and basically going into extinction (example RAV). I have not seen or heard M$ claim that they will integrate anti-virus software or provide a better firewall other than their very basic ICF (does not allow application control) that comes with WinXP. So why purchase companies such as a security company if you are not going to use the software? This would essentially be to the benefit of your customers and in turn benefit the shareholders. Is this just another way of squashing the competition and controlling their hold on the market?
These are just some of the reasons why I switched to Linux. The monopoly game is getting tiresome. Just as tiresome as hearing Anti-Trust cases against M$ that go no where. Either the laws are to weak or the Prosecutors are not doing enough to punish companies that behave like this.
“Please, MS is quibbling over a minor detail. Taking out the WMP is no big deal for them, they just don’t like to budge on anything. There is nothing in Windows that requires WMP, they simply enjoy smashing small competitors like WinAmp and Real. Same old song and dance for them.”
If you remove the Windows Media libraries from the OS, you will break 3rd party applications. Just as if you remove the Quicktime system in Apple or the IE renderer in Windows. The existence of these libraries doesn’t mean you can’t use a 3rd party player (in fact, some 3rd party players likely use elements of WM). The ability to play music and watch videos is something users expect in a default install of an OS. This is much ado about nothing and helps the *customers* not a bit.
To all the ones thinking the Media-player issue is ridiculous : it’s not the only reason for the fine. The other one is that companies who want to work with full MS-Desktop systems (office or just network sharing), are forced to also use MS servers, because MS won’t release the specs for the protocol (just look at how much samba is living on reverse engineering). This is so much more of a real issue, but the news agency don’t understand that really. The news writers only see the flashy stuff, i.e. media player.
“If Microsoft would be treated differently if it were a european corporation.”
Of course. You don’t see the EU going after the GSM/UMTS alliance do you?
Regardless, what you are seeing is the value of having more than one “superpower.” The EU is an economic superpower and with this move they are providing some balance to the US whose actions were corrupted by $$$ and a dirty republican led white house.
Balance is good. The EU is doing the right thing and i am impressed that they rejected Balmer’s offers (which i am assuming could have included some nice “benefits” for the EU).
looks like the EU actually goes through with action, the usa just settled for some money and went home.
sorry but having microsoft give anyone money will not solve anything
“To all the ones thinking the Media-player issue is ridiculous : it’s not the only reason for the fine. The other one is that companies who want to work with full MS-Desktop systems (office or just network sharing), are forced to also use MS servers, because MS won’t release”
This is hardly something worth of a *fine* – especially when you DON’T have to use MS servers. This is political.
You know, constantly I see this point not made in this kind of thread.
No one disputes that someone can add a third party player to Windows if they want to.
The issue is this:
1) WMP integrates directly into Windows because Microsoft controls the source code.
Once again…They control the source code.
Which means they can make it possible for other players to not work in Windows as well or at all because they control the code.
2) Because they licensed the OS to PC manufacturers, they controlled what was placed on the OS.
This was the core of the US argument. Microsoft made PC vendors not carry 3rd party software that would be in direct competition with any of their products. This was anti-competitive.
Netscape was a 3rd party, just like Realplayer that was in direct competition. They had no chance.
The EU is understanding this. Mostly for the media player section, but the same basic principle.
Brian: I personally am glad that they refused the settlement because Microsoft needs to have antitrust action taken against them. Tying things like the media player int the system is not given the consumer the choice to chose their own media player. This has been taken on time after time in different contexts. I hope EU wins this legal action.
Pray tell, how is WMP 8.0 installed on the default installation of Windows P prevents me from installing other media players? I currently use WinAMP extensively – tell me, how is that possible considering I have no choice? Tell me also, why that everyone I know that listens music or videos extensively on their computers know at least the top players in their market and know their choices before making them? Tell me, too, since WMP have been in Windows since 3.1, why doesn’t it claim a overwhelming majority in marketshare?
In fact, most of the people I know actually using WMP other than watching/listing to WMVs/WMAs have WMP 9.0 installed – something that doesn’t come with Windows. Certainly they didn’t make a choice, right? I mean, that would go against the entire argument.
Stu: Or you could say “Oh look the EU is doing alright as they successfully resisted the temptation to accept Ballmer’s bribes and empty assurances and decided instead to do what the ‘worlds most powerful nation and figurehead for democracy’ couldn’t do which is uphold the law and punish a corporate criminal to an appropriate degree”.
Do you realize that antitrust regulation in the US and antitrust regulation in the EU is vastly different? How could you say the DOJ didn’t “uphold the law” in their landmark antitrust case?
Stu: (Not an anti-american statement BTW – in fact pretty pro-american for a european – but they did ‘drop the ball’ in this particular case)
I have met quite a number Europeans that are far more pro-America than you. You, my friend, ain’t pro-America. Maybe not as extreme as some Europeans, but still not pro-America. Get used to it.
Rayiner Hashem: Of course. Why do you think Microsoft got off so easily in the US? Because we were in the middle of a recession, and nobody wanted to mess with them.
Then why was Ma Bell splitted up in 1984, when the economy wasn’t really in its best shape? I mean, unemployment rates were around the same figure as with year 2001. The appeals court could have easily overturned Microsoft’s appeals. Perhaps they overturned Jackson’s remedy because it was out of line? Politics certainly isn’t the answer – Reagan was president in 1984.
Drill Sgt: Including a media player is not the issue. The fact that the OS can not be installed without installing the media player is the issue.
Xandros includes a media player on any of its installs. It is pretty hard to get rid of it – much harder than going to Start> Control Panel> Add/Remove Programs> Set Program Access and Defaults> You never have to see WMP again. Much easier than in Xandros, no?
Besides, the thing with European antitrust regulation is that if restrictions were placed on one company, it would placed on every company within the same market. In other words – it doesn’t matter how easy it is to remove various media applications; every player in that market have to come up with an edition without their media players for the retail market – from Apple to Mandrakesoft.
dizz: And now the facts: the EU will, and has done so numerous times in the past, also punish European companies if they break antitrust laws.
Far more leniently than in this case. France Telecom was haggling with the EC for years until they decided to slap fines on it – Microsoft’s case is being too rushed on thr contrary.
dpi: Third: anyone whined that the Dutch-British Shell company got investigated by SEC?
American oil company’s worst nemesis ain’t their competitors, it is the SEC. Shell on the other hand got off pretty easily, as with all foreign oil companies.
dpi: The Japanese have raided Microsoft Japan office because of anti competitive behaviour
Japanese laws in this regard is very lax.
Anmol Misra: To discourage other browsers, MS uses on IE for it’s windows update. If you want to update using other browsers, then you have to download updates one by one and manually install it! is that not unfair?
No, actually, I don’t see how it is unfair. I’m a diehard Opera fan, I don’t mind having IE download and install Windows Update every so often. It isn’t like I’m using IE for anything else but that. Would there be more Opera/Mozilla/Firefox/etc. users if their users could use Windows Update in their browsers? Doubt it.
Kenyatta: There is nothing in Windows that requires WMP, they simply enjoy smashing small competitors like WinAmp and Real.
I invite you, please rip out manually every last WMP library and then run Adobe Premier. (Ironically though, Quicktime has steadily increased their market share. Is there something wrong with this picture?)
Issue #1: I disabled Media Player to use an alternate player but MP always seemed to override my settings and defaulted back to Windows software only. Even when using iTunes that was a pain because frequently I would find Media Player overriding my set up for iTunes to be my default player. Why won’t M$ allow me to use a competitors software?
Never happen to me. Of course, I never did hid WMP 9 (didn’t see a reason), but WinAMP from the moment it is installed was the default media player for most stuff. Never had a problem you’ve experienced. Perhaps it is the user’s fault? By default, everytime you open WMP it asks you whether to revert itself back to default. Below that is a checkbox asking if you ever want to see this dialog again. Check the dialog and click no, and you wouldn’t be bothered ever. Perhaps you’ve checked that checkbox and clicked yes?
Issue #2: Updating or installing programs such as MSN Messenger. I updated to 6.1 but XP would not allow me to remove the basic messenger 4.7 that came with XP. M$ for some reason felt it was necessary to integrate MSN 4.7 into Outlook. What if I wanted to use a competitors Messenger?
You’re looking at two different applications – one MSN Messenger, the other Windows Messenger. If need be, you can hide Windows Messenger, but installing would render MSN Messenger useless. I have Windows Messenger hid and I am using MSN Messenger without a problem. Using Outlook 2003 (previously, 2002) and Outlook Express (personally don’t use either, but I have family).
Issue #3: Windows users are well aware of the security concerns with IE and the OS due to holes/back doors and virus attacks. Doing a little research I was shocked to see that M$ purchases competitor companies such as those that distribute security software and then does nothing with them.
What makes you think when Microsoft staple antivirus capabilities within Windows, companies like McAfee and Symantec wouldn’t sue them immediately? Besides, the courts should stay out of the business of making Windows more secure – most people leaving Windows are leaving because of security concerns. The courts shouldn’t be the ones trying to protect Microsoft’s monopoly, no?
I have not seen or heard M$ claim that they will integrate anti-virus software or provide a better firewall other than their very basic ICF (does not allow application control) that comes with WinXP.
If you want to blame anyone, blame antitrust regulation, which makes Microsoft a sitting duck. There’s no reason why companies like Symantec and Zonealarm wouldn’t sue Microsoft if it includes an anti-virus and a better firewall. And besides, if Microsoft does include something along the line, it would rather quickly become the dominant firewall and antivirus, and any security hole in it would be exploited.
Even now when Norton nor McAfee is a dominant monopoly, there are viruses that attack and disable their capabilities – imagine if there’s only *one* antivirus and firewall.
You contradict yourself here. You want WMP and Windows Messenger out though they provide valuable features for mainly ISVs (try running Kazaa without WMP), but you want Microsoft to crush competition in another market that would fare much better with competition? Sorry, it doesn’t make any sense here.
Brian Cross: You know, constantly I see this point not made in this kind of thread.
The point wasn’t made in your post either.
Brian Cross: 1) WMP integrates directly into Windows because Microsoft controls the source code.
Quicktime is integrated into OS X because Apple control the source code, so?
Brian Cross: Which means they can make it possible for other players to not work in Windows as well or at all because they control the code.
I’m making two guesses what this means:
1) You mean that Microsoft could easily restrict the use of WMP. They wouldn’t have any reason to do so, and they never planned to do so, and they aren’t planning to do so. And if they do so, DOJ would be on them like a hungry Rottweiler on a big fat juicy steak.
2) You mean that Microsoft could easily restrict third party applications competing with WMP from running on Windows – again, this haven’t happen, and it is unlikely this would happen as it would piss off 70% of the media market and again, DOJ would on them like a hungry Rottweiler on a big fat juicy steak.
Either case doesn’t apply in this EC case.
Brian Cross: 2) Because they licensed the OS to PC manufacturers, they controlled what was placed on the OS.[…]
This had change since DOJ’s remedy which many called a slap on the wrist. And if you actually read the CNET article carefully, the propose EC remedy ain’t for the OEM market, it is for the retail market. EC wants Microsoft to come up with an cheap retail edition without WMP – nothing to do with OEMs here.
Brian Cross: Netscape was a 3rd party, just like Realplayer that was in direct competition. They had no chance.
Netscape had no chance simply because it is decided that a 4 -year rewrite should be started when competition was its toughest. Real had no chance because until recently, Realplayer sucked real bad, and most people only install it to watch Realmedia online. But in the latter case, Real has less than 10% difference with WMP’s market share (~20% market share).
How exactly Real having no chance eludes me.
Brian Cross: The EU is understanding this. Mostly for the media player section, but the same basic principle.
EU doesn’t understand this (otherwise its propose settlement would be one that concerns OEMs). It wants Microsoft to come up with a retail product that would most certainly fail in every case scenario. If WMP isn’t installed, as soon as someone tries to install some 3rd party application that requires WMP, it would ask that WMP be installed. Which means, not much difference for Real nor Apple.
1) WMP integrates directly into Windows because Microsoft controls the source code.
Once again…They control the source code.
Which means they can make it possible for other players to not work in Windows as well or at all because they control the code.
Except that ms doesn’t make do anything that breaks apps. On the contrary, ms does everything to ensure compatibility. In fact, they will go so far as to ensure that a certain program works, even if the vendor doesn’t. If you look at some comments by people who have looked at the source, they say that ms has made up a lot of hacks in windows 2k to ensure programs work.
Nobody is raising this issue because it isn’t an issue.
2) Because they licensed the OS to PC manufacturers, they controlled what was placed on the OS.
This was the core of the US argument. Microsoft made PC vendors not carry 3rd party software that would be in direct competition with any of their products. This was anti-competitive.
All very true. This was taken care of by the DoJ. That was definitely anti-competitive.
Netscape was a 3rd party, just like Realplayer that was in direct competition. They had no chance.
Netscape failed because navigator sucked to tell you the truth. Do you really believe netscape lost because MS bundled IE freely? IE won the browser wars because netscape was doing a code rewrite even though the current browser they had out sucked. On the other hand, ie was being updated constantly and got better and better. People chose IE because it was better. The rewrite was also a failure by the way.
Same thing applies to real. They lost because too many people didn’t like their player.
…Such tactics as stopping the company from selling their software and basically going into extinction (example RAV). I have not seen or heard M$ claim that they will integrate anti-virus software
Longhorn is suppose to have better anti-virus api your claim is false. You don’t hear about it often since it’s nothing revolutionary, but it’s true.
or provide a better firewall other than their very basic ICF (does not allow application control) that comes with WinXP.
XP sp2 does have application control. MS got fed up for the bad press they get so often. The reason they haven’t done this is because they have traditionally kept ease of use over functionality on desktop versions of windows. Application control, though necessary, is annoying.
This would essentially be to the benefit of your customers and in turn benefit the shareholders. Is this just another way of squashing the competition and controlling their hold on the market?
MS is providing a very basic ingoing and outgoing firewall. Nothing like the commercial grade, advanced firewalls that aren’t free. They put this firewall in for the people who would never buy, much less know what a firewall is. So market share is not lost nor is it gained.
“Microsoft’s settlement proposal focused on two areas: Media player software, and increasing the interoperability of Windows with competing software by making more technical information available to rivals, according to Jim Desler, a Microsoft spokesman.”
“The settlement offer also included discussion of issues surrounding Windows Server, and how it interoperates with competing software. Desler would not comment on those discussions.”
Please, people of good will, DO NOT read ONLY the flashy part; DO read also where the meat is.
The European Commission has been consistently talking about interoperability (up to now mainly talking I fear) for years and that’s the real point. Software vendors should be able to sell whatever they want and however they want, as long as the protocols and the file formats are public.
Unfortunately Desler would not comment on those discussions……..
What is it that would make someone feel sorry for Microsoft? Does Bill not have a big enough house? Whenever there’s a MS thread, there are people coming through and defending a company which neither needs defending nor is worth defending. They don’t have enough marketshare? Not enough money? What could possibly illicit pity for the world’s richest corporation?
To field some questions…
What is it that would make someone feel sorry for Microsoft?
Uhm, because it is unfair?
Does Bill not have a big enough house?
Does that matter in the debate whether or not Microsoft is guilty, and if it is, whether or not it should be guilty. Not whether or not Bill deserves more money. But while we are on the topic of Bill’s riches, can you tell me anyone else who have donated around the same amount as Bill Gates to international charities that never got in trouble with antitrust regulation?
Heck, can you think of a non-partisan, non-governmental organization donating more money than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation anywhere in the world? (If you’re finding, try to find a larger number than $24 billion).
Whenever there’s a MS thread, there are people coming through and defending a company which neither needs defending nor is worth defending.
And this is bad because….?
They don’t have enough marketshare? Not enough money?
No, they have enough marketshare. What the courts are doing wouldn’t decrease Microsoft’s market share, would not increase it’s competitors competitive edge, and wouldn’t do majority of consumers any better. What it would do is decrease the money Microsoft makes, which in turn deceases the amount of money Bill Gates can donate and the amount of potential employees Microsoft can employ.
What could possibly illicit pity for the world’s richest corporation?
What could possibly illicit pity for people targeting a company that does a lot of good just because of its size and wealth?
Heck, can you think of a non-partisan, non-governmental organization donating more money than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation anywhere in the world? (If you’re finding, try to find a larger number than $24 billion).
So, if I kill someone, and then donate money to charity – does that make me a murderer or a saint?
“Boot time has nothing to do with what is being discussed.”
Read -> Comprehend -> Post.
You failed at the second step. Boot time and optimizing the speed of a computer with removing some software you do not use anyway, my dear Roy, has everything to do with this thing called “choice”. [English tone]You don’t really get it, now do you?[/] This is all about CHOICE; which is very limited in this point. They could change the source to make binds for any Video Player, and have that Video Player then supporting it for example with a DLL. Then, WMP can be used if the user wants, but the user can also chose for a different alternative. Same for MSIE, and i hope MS gets sued for that too.
@ uss bloat Sure, it is very naked then, but on an old computer you’d rather like something like that (exactly what i _wanted_ on my laptop). Chose some _better_ software with it: WinAmp2, Mozilla Firefox and LiteStep (examples). Go drive the highway with your new fast computer. I didn’t boughtall these Windows versions to make a shitty performance on my (old) laptop.
“People chose IE because it was better.”
Let’s have a poll at some random 10K Windowqs/x86 users and ask them which browser they use and about which alternatives they heard. How high do you predict the numbers of people who know there is an alternative?
“looks like the EU actually goes through with action, the usa just settled for some money and went home.
sorry but having microsoft give anyone money will not solve anything”
What will *solve* this is having competitors that actually *compete* instead of litigate.
…just lame reasoning by MS from the start…
Windows is an OS, as na OS it should provide a set of API for other piece of software to work, so MS doesn’t has the technical right to bundle any other application to windows apart the libraries that provides the APIs. Windows must be the OS, i could say that also the shell (explorer.exe) is too much, i should be able to use any shell i want built on top of a common API.
…WAIT…THAT’S WHAT UNIX IS! who needs windows??
You failed at the second step. Boot time and optimizing the speed of a computer with removing some software you do not use anyway, my dear Roy, has everything to do with this thing called “choice”.
Here’s some choice: Don’t use Windows. Pretty simple isn’t it? I mean, afterall, if you strip out WMP from Windows (and go further and strip out IE), there isn’t really much point using Windows, isn’t it? I mean, I can’t run pro apps like Photoshop, Premier (FCP users, don’t scoff) or AutoCAD, can’t I? Why bother, may as well use Linux, no?
Besides, if boot speed is faster and if it is true that consumer do want faster boot speed (actually, Windows XP boot speed is pretty remarkable, only after time it slows, not due to WMP and IE) – wouldn’t the courts be forcing Microsoft to compete better? In other words, wouldn’t that make it harder for Microsoft’s competitors to compete?
They could change the source to make binds for any Video Player, and have that Video Player then supporting it for example with a DLL.
Not necessarily. Put your bare hands into KDE and rip off Arts, and replace it with KXine, for example, can you guarantee that it would be binary compatible? In fact, all arts-replacement projects state that the goal to replace it while maintaining binary compatiblity is in all practice and purposes impossible.
Now, the big question is “why?”. How does Real make money from having ISVs using its APIs? Only if they charge for it, (in which in that case, hardly anyone would use Real’s APIs unless genuinely needed). What’s wrong with being a third party application? Heck, sometimes, opening RealONE seems faster than opening WMP9.
Let’s have a poll at some random 10K Windowqs/x86 users and ask them which browser they use and about which alternatives they heard.
A lot of people know of Netscape unless they are a new computer user. And why would they know of Mozilla? It is not a commercial project – it is just funded by AOL. And who would know Opera – a small-time Norwegian company that targets a niche or users, instead of mass consumer (or, if they really are targeting the average hill’billy Joe, they are really not helping themselves with the UI found in 7.5)
So, now let’s see who’s fault is it that Netscape bite the dust. Netscape, at the heat of competition, decided to give up on their own code and rewrite. That rewrite, my friend, took 4 years. And before the rewrite could be completed, they released Netscape 6, in which they lost most of whatever market they held (me included). Until today, AOL, their parent company, have yet to use Gecko. They, technically, can use Gecko (as seen in Compuserve), but refuse to do so.
However, 4 years of a rewrite, where 1.0 wasn’t the best thing since slice bread (barely able to compete feature-per-feature with IE), is rather ridiculous. Opera managed to rewrite their rendering engine within months – with less engineers and less funds. If you followed roughly Mozilla’s development, you could see that they weren’t following a clear-cut roadmap from the beginning. They allow themselves to get distracted, instead on focusing on delivering to the market.
Sad thing, rather.
But at that time, most in my family were using IE, not because it came with Windows, but because it was better. But since I was wetting my hands with Linux (later I would move full-time to Linux, to move back 2 years later to Windows), I used Netscape. People knew their choices then, IE would still have dominated even though it wasn’t bundled with Windows. Perhaps not 90% of the market share, but close enough.
Boring subject. Up to now result always the same, they get away with it. So yes it would be nice to see MS humbled, but for them its no big deal to bundle or not. I don’t know what the answer is to deal with a gorilla like MS, but it certainly is not to have judgement after judgement and no action that curbs their 90+ per cent market share, as that sort of percentage is cloud-cuckoo land – if you want to have a market with a fairly level playing field.
Well said. That is a very valid point. How to remove that horrible crap msie without screwing the whole installation.
That’s very true. It can be done. But not my most people.
Anyway, who needs windows…………….
You can delete quicktime on macs, but not with WiMP on windows.
“Uhm, because it is unfair?”
Unfair? How? By trying to even the playing field? Besides we’re talking about MS here. You know, the company convicted of anti trust…
“Heck, can you think of a non-partisan, non-governmental organization donating more money than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation anywhere in the world?”
Donating free Microsoft software isn’t really all that charitable.
Honestly, Rajan, you work so hard at PR and Damage Control for MS. If you’re doing it for free, then it’s a shame because a deep pocketed company like that ought to be willing to pay you for your efforts.
“Here’s some choice: Don’t use Windows. Pretty simple isn’t it?”
You call that an “argument”? LOL! Wow, if i’d react on a post with critisism to a certain FLOSS program and i’d say: “hey, if you don’t like it, don’t use it” everyone would laugh their ass off! Newsflash: unlike home computer users, one can’t always decide what _OS_ one has (!) to use. While it applied on my personal situation and i chose a different OS later, you can’t simply state this, and i wasn’t able to apply this multiple times in the past.
It is quite like the argument “if you don’t like your country, feel free to leave it” while this doesn’t apply for everyone since they cannot leave, it also is a simple fallacy to evade criticism. Instead of evading the negative points of the country, one can try and achieve to make the country better according to his/her philosophies or ideals. Instead of simply chosing for an alternative, i chose to for criticism for the company in question with the admitted nice side aspect that i see my point as pro-free market and pro-choice (thus pro freedom of the masses).
“I mean, afterall, if you strip out WMP from Windows (and go further and strip out IE), there isn’t really much point using Windows, isn’t it?”
Who needs these 2 applications for Office work? Who needs these 2 applications on a server which has the sole purpose of running a webserver, who needs these applications on a firewall? Who says anyone in this world wants to use IE or WMP. Oh, the arrogance! We know what you want to use, we decide it before you. Want choice? Go use some other OS! It makes no sense…
(As explained earlier “there isn’t […], is there?”)
“Not necessarily. […]”
A static library then, blah. Perhaps it would involve actual cooperation between MS and Real. Oh, the horror, MS cooperates with a competitor!
“A lot of people know of Netscape unless they are a new computer user.”
Yeah, right. First of all you completely ignore the fact webdesigners made sites only compatible with MSIE. You simply ignore that in your whole post! Second, Between 1999-2004 a LOT new internet (!= computer) users popped up. Those who joined in prior to that have heard and possibly used Netscape, others of the group i name haven’t. These others haven’t made a decision to chose IE over other products because it simply came with their computers. The same is true for ICQ. How many? How can we know. You claim you know that so good with your numbers of 90% vs. almost 90%, i beg you to state all your numbers and statistics (good luck!).
“People knew their choices then, IE would still have dominated even though it wasn’t bundled with Windows.”
So what is so much better about IE than Opera, Netscape or Mozilla? Clearly, you have a whole different experience with Netscape than i have. The same is true for Opera. None of our experiences is “The Ultimate Truth”. You name Opera “small” and all the other name calling, but the open question is wether it would have more market share than it has now. You claim “niche market”, how would you know how the company and the browser evolved when it continued to get more and more market share? You can’t. You can’t proof your assertion either. It’s merely one of the many predictions from the marketing department of $company.
What you continue to do is using practical, hypothetic examples of why it is justified while i don’t care about these because they’re very uncertain. You cannot know how many people think, you can only predict it. I want to use the theoretical example, without any hypothetic market share ram-slam, of how a company has the power over the source of a product which comes with many more products which all directly competete with various competitors’ products. The root lies in that company uses its’ own main product to push its’ other products and claims they can’t change that behaviour; they can, since they have the source. Anyone else who uses this method should be prosecuted too in full extend of the fall. That learns them to play nice.
Because this behaviour falls under my definition of anti-competitive behaviour and since the so-called “Free Market” we live in comes with a lot of regulations for all sides [both FLOSS and proprietary as well as any others), this can (my take is: will) be prosecuted. Unfortunately for you and your love for Microsoft, this time the “Free Market” turns against you instead of that the regulation helps you. Good luck with your futher agenda against certain aspects of the European Free Market, you’re gonna need it.
Don’t like it? Let’s team up in the battle against “Free Market” regulation: lets make the “Free Market” Free! That involves opposing copyright, patents, trademarks, anti-trust regulation, and all other forms of behaviour which limits the rights of the People. Then, my dear Rajan, we’ll finally see real “break once, run everywhere” *short silence, big grin*.
Sure, it is very naked then, but on an old computer you’d rather like something like that (exactly what i _wanted_ on my laptop).
I’ll say this once and I’ll say it again.
I’ve removed ie myself from 98se on my older computer, and yes it was faster, but that’s because html was disabled.
You not only disabled ie, you’ve disabled part of windows itself. That’s why when you view html help files, you MUST update ie, even if you don’t ever use ie. This is because WINDOWS uses html components that ie ALSO uses.
Read -> Comprehend -> Post.
You failed at the second step.
You have also failed the second step. I suspect you even failed the first by not reading my post completely.
IE is a very small part of windows. Windows and ie share many components so what have you basically done is screw up the os.
As for your old computer, why are you running old hardware on windows? That’s the whole point of system requirements for crying out loud. If you want to tweak windows, fine, but don’t complain if your computer gets broken, ok? You seem to represent what .001% of the population when you raise this issue. If you have performance issues with windows, then its just easier to get a better computer. But that’s not the point, is it? You want to uninstall ie. Fine I understand that. Perfectly. I don’t like programs I don’t use on my hd because of performance issues. MS does not do this completely however as they just remove access in xp. This is because ie itself takes only 2 mb of your hd space. Don’t quibble over 2 mb, please.
Technically, in xp, you CAN uninstall ie and wmp. They’re such small programs though that ms decided not to erase the files when you remove access to them. Again, don’t quibble over 2mb and the fact that your not using the program. Just don’t tell me that the libraries used by ie must be uninstalled because I’ll say it again, html is a part of windows.
I understand how having ie on your hd is annoying. Really I do. I feel the same about spyware, virueses, and spam. SP1 removes access AND other apps DO play very nicely with windows. You can install winamp and mozilla and have them as your default apps.
Technically, ie isn’t actually a part of windows except for that fact that you can’t delete it through add/remove programs and regain hard drive space. You can uninstall competing browsers to make them play nicely with windows. Other than that, html components used by ie are also used by windows for other things that have nothing to do with web browsing. You can’t uninstall those components. Same with wmp. The components used by wmp are used by directx. In previous versions of windows, wmp was also integrated. WMP itself took less than a mb. The core files were integrated windows because directx also used them.
People have the perception here that wmp and ie are annoying bugs that rear their ugly heads if you use alternatives. That’s simply not true. You can set default programs under xp and have them disappear. I myself don’t use windows messesnger but aim rather after removing spyware. I’ve never had a problem with windows messenger popping up and bothering me.
So dpi, what exactly is the problem? Granted you can’t do these things in older versions of windows, but that’s changed with xp.
Chose some _better_ software with it: WinAmp2, Mozilla Firefox and LiteStep (examples). Go drive the highway with your new fast computer. I didn’t boughtall these Windows versions to make a shitty performance on my (old) laptop.
I’ve used those, and to tell you the truth, I don’t need them. I hardly use wmp, much less have a need for winamp. Also, mozilla’s features don’t really entice me. IE is perfectly fine even though it has less features. As for litestep, I tried that 4 years ago and didn’t like it. I don’t plan on coming back.
You seem to be out of touch with people, seriously. Windows was never made for people like you. Microsoft targets john and jane doe you know. That’s why windows comes with ie and wmp. IE and wmp are basic apps. These are not full blown media players and web browsers that contain every feature precisely because of the target market.
So how are you going to unbundle wmp and ie without hurting john and jane? They expect these apps to come with their computers. Do you expect them to download them off the internet? How about those of us who don’t have the internet. You know, winamp, realplayer, mozilla, and firefox can only be distributed by the internet. Most of the world can’t have the internet. It’s even expensive in many parts and bandwidth usage becomes a source of revenue for isps. Do you expect these people to download large files just to get started on the internet? That’s impossible. How do you get on the internet if you don’t have a browser. LOL.
As for wmp, there are still uses for it even if you don’t have the internet, an mp3 player, or even a cd player. Not everybody has the luxury of this stuff, and ms keeps this in mind when they bundle this stuff.
In the end, real and apple have no real merit on their case. The problem isn’t bundling. It’s distribution. MS has the advantage of having its stuff installed with windows. Real and apple don’t. Real has its own music d/l service which ms is coming out with their own in the next version of wmp. I agree, that’s unfair how ms automatically has the audience of hundreds of millions of users. That’s not the point though. How is ms going to play fairly while they keep customers happy? In this case, what ms should probably do is keep that portion out of wmp.
MS is not deliberately killing competition unfairly. For example, in xp, you can order photos online right from the gui! Now if ms decided to set up their own service, that would be kind of unfair, right? BTW, I don’t think they do. It is unfair, but let’s be honest, I’m betting that the few people who do find this feature like it. This is integration at its best, yet it also is hurting the potential market of buying photos from pics on the computer (this is not the same as pics by digital cameras). So how do we resolve this issue without taking out some features in windows?
This is very difficult. Software integration is good. MS integrates stuff because it’s nice having these features and to make the lives of regular people easy. Computers are going to be the center of our lives in the future so we can’t stop ms adding necessary features to windows. That would be stupid.
Integration is inevitable. Software apps are going to be more and more integrated. The real player itself has its own browser for its music service. You can also listen to the radio over the internet for your browser. This would typically be done by a media app, but it’s done by browsers because its nice. Look at the eolas patent case. There’s nothing wrong with having software that integrates very well. It’s pretty cool that I don’t have to open adobe separately to look at pdfs online.
You tell me, at what point can’t ms put in features in windows without hurting the consumer? This is not an easy issue.
“Well said. That is a very valid point. How to remove that horrible crap msie without screwing the whole installation.
That’s very true. It can be done. But not my most people.
Anyway, who needs windows……………. ”
Someone who needs things not available elsewhere.