In a decision that could affect consumers, competitors and PC makers, the European Commission requires Microsoft to unbundle Media Player from Windows and pay a $613 million fine.
EU Slaps Record Fine on Microsoft
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It will indeed affect them in a very positive way. For the first time, consumers of the European Union begin to have a choice to decide which media format and player they want to use.
More importantly, new innovative start-ups will not be shut out of the server market because of Microsoft’s tendency to change API’s to thwart competitor’s attempts at interoperability. In light of this, the accomplishments of the Samba Team are nothing short of amazing.
Finally, the EU has been very thorough this time around and the decision will stand even if challenged in court. More importantly, I am confident that the remedies will not be postponed until the case actually finds its way to the European Court of Justice.
Let true competition finally begin…
By the way, is Microsoft PR campaign so sheepishly blind that they cannot changed cues? Nobody is buying this is about us being punished for innovating and yet they continue to tout that line ad nauseam.
Poor folks, it must be a really boring job to attempt to justify things that are not justifiable in good consciensce.
I’m not proud to be European by reading this useless action against Microsoft. What could a fine possibly do? Microsoft needs to be broken up into different units: OS and applications. In that way the competition can be restored for consumer applications on Windows.
I’d say that the Americans should handle their own companies and see if MS can be broken up by them, if they were so inclined. It is none of our business, really. Or am I wrong about this?
“For the first time, consumers of the European Union begin to have a choice to decide which media format and player they want to use. ”
So, you are saying that consumers of the European Union didn’t know how to download Real Player before this? Why would anyone want to buy a version of Microsoft that didn’t have WMP on it, anyway?
And since when is it a good idea for government bodies to be determining how software gets developed? Seriously, think about that.
This is a bad decision. I mean, fine them if you think it is warranted, break up the company, whatever, but stay the heck out of software development.
Remember that u or I are not microsofts customers. Dell, HP etc are. And by choice here we are talking about not being forced to ship Media Player when in an OEM agreement.
As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products.
This is the single most important part of the decision. MS will either have to open up everything or take their ball and go home. Since that ball is 30% of their revenue, they won’t be leaving any time soon. When this all gets opened up, I’d expect Linux to have almost 100% compatibility within a year.
Hi
Debundling of wmp marks something significant
Why?
People need to choose between different players. Microsoft should not leverage its dominance on operating systems to get into the browser or media players market.
Thats why being a monopoly isnt illegal. Leveraging your monopoly is
Now someone could possibly choose opera over IE in windows but there is no clean way to remove it. same with windows media player. No other operating system does this except windows. thats the key problem
Jess
“I’m not proud to be European by reading this useless action against Microsoft.”
You can be as ashamed as you want to be by your European identity. This is not a Europe vs US thing. This is about a monopoly not being able to use its monopoly position to force other competitors out of markets in which they did originally have a monopoly position and thus, extend, its monopoly even further.
What many fail to understand is that when you are a company of the size of Microsoft, you are under certain legal constraints so that market competition can exist. Unregulated markets are black markets and we know how well those function.
This decision should benefit consumers on both sides of the Atlantic and should be heralded as a victory. True innovation can only happen when companies, large and small, have a chance to participate meaningfully in the same markets.
“It will indeed affect them in a very positive way. For the first time, consumers of the European Union begin to have a choice to decide which media format and player they want to use.”
So what was stopping people from using a different media player before? Darn that evil Microsoft! Wanting you to use their media player instead of someone elses. I bet they even made it so Windows Media Player would go in and screw up other media players on your computer as well to make sure theirs would be the only one that works! Seriously, I think Microsoft is getting screwed hard core. So when will the EU go in and require that all Linux distros and Apple remove their media players? I highly doubt it will happen, since the EU is probably just pissed off since Microsoft is a very successful American company, and not a Eurpoean one… The only thing we can hope for is that Microsoft finds a loop hole though this un justicified ruling.
The article is incomplete. The fine is 497,2 million EUR. Which is 0.5% of their revenue. They could, from the legal point of view, have fined as much as 10% of their yearly revenue. It is the most biggest antitrust punishment next to Roche Holding of Switzerland, which was imposed in November 2001.
But the post here is incomplete because it fails to state the other 2 parts of the antitrust case. Personally i find this rather sad because this news has been posted here for numerous time now, and now the facts ain’t straight here in the final decision. The other reason i find thgis sad is because these 2 other remedies are interesting, and i’m looking way forward to read legal anylis. This could lead to interesting results for for example WINE or Native WMV support in Media Players on other OSes and lead to services like AD and SMB becoming open.
Here are 2 other 2:
As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products.
And
As regards tying, Microsoft is required, within 90 days, to offer to PC manufacturers a version of its Windows client PC operating system without WMP. The un-tying remedy does not mean that consumers will obtain PCs and operating systems without media players. Most consumers purchase a PC from a PC manufacturer which has already put together on their behalf a bundle of an operating system and a media player. As a result of the Commission’s remedy, the configuration of such bundles will reflect what consumers want, and not what Microsoft imposes.
These quotes were taken from the full, original article. The full, original article which comes straight from the EC, including accurate conclusions based on the 5-year investigation in this case, is available here
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt…
Please read it. It is available in a wide number of languages and in TXT, DOC and PDF (kudo’s for this).
Some zealots here, who mysteriously really believe this is some anti-American sentiment, won’t read read it anyway so i’ll quote from it too.
In December 1998, Sun Microsystems, another US company, complained that Microsoft had refused to provide interface information necessary for Sun to be able to develop products that would “talk” properly with the ubiquitous Windows PCs, and hence be able to compete on an equal footing in the market for work group server operating systems.
The Commission’s investigation revealed that Sun was not the only company that had been refused this information, and that these non-disclosures by Microsoft were part of a broader strategy designed to shut competitors out of the market.
Speaks for itself, imo.
Linux distributions also have lots of pre-installed software, most important is that they are free software (gnu), how do you think commercial company’s can compete with free software (gnu)??? Get real, guys! Why shouldn’t microsoft pre-install software in their operating system? I will be very, very happy to have office, software to browse the internet, see movies, games, and other interesting software pré-installed when I buy a computer, maybe could be the next step of microsoft:)…
Just like the Electricity company which is the only one in town, so is Microsoft. Let’s not forget who will bring us to the future. Microsoft will. ANY Government has no right telling Microsoft what it should put in it’s operating system. It’s noone’s fault that the other operating systems out there for desktop use are pure CRAP. MacOSX doensn’t even compare to what Longhorn will be. Linux doesn’t even come CLOSE to XP right now. I use all kinds of Os’s and the only one that works MOST OF THE TIME is Windows. I see it working ALL of the time in my future.
Get real yourself. If Miscosoft has bundled every major media player on market like GNU/Linux Distros do, this would never have happened.
Stop foaming at the mouth and read what I and others have posted. You do not seem to understand the nature of the ruling or the nature of legal monopolies and their different responsibilities. Does Apple have 90-95 percent of the Desktop market?
Finally, most consumers go with the defaults. Many of them will not search for a competing product when one comes with their computers for “free”. While there might be a portion of the market that seeks out alternative products, mainstream users use what’s on the computer. In turn, with a decreasing number of users on alternative media players, content providers decide that it is not worth their trouble to offer streaming in more than one format, thereby reinforcing the monopoly’s position and driving all competition out of that market.
Is this so hard to understand? Damn, do you really want to live in a world where there is one single software company that provides all your products?
the stocks of MS go UP and UP, no matter what
I was just about to click the Abuse button when I relaized how satirical your post really is.
You don’t understand the situation at all. MS is being punished by using their OS that is used by 90+% of the world in order to enter new markets and force competition out.
They do this constantly with a multitude of technologies. They do it, especially, when they miss a market and a product explodes in that market.
Most people will use what they are given. They only go out and get something new if they *need* it. That includes web browsers, media players, programming languages, etc. If they don’t need it, they are less likely to go look for it. The quality of the product is not an issue.
Example 1: Netscape. People needed a web browser, so they got Navigator. MS realized this and started bundling IE w/ MS Plus. It didn’t catch on because people had Netscape. So, they used their monopoly power to leverage IE into the market by putting it on the desktop. They then fined OEM’s who bundled Netscape (or other products). They LEVERAGED their MONOPOLY status to push Netscape out of the market completely.
Example 2: Media Player. People needed a media player, so they got Real Player (or QT). Well, MS realized this and built their own Media player. They made it read Real and QT formats and bundled it w/ Windows. (Note: they were forced to remove this compatibility). They used the bundled software to slowly bundle their own media format (WMV) and push other media software out of the market. They punished the OEM people by fining them for including other software… They have about 80% of this market now. Why? Because they LEVERAGED THEIR MONOPOLY.
There are other examples of this, and you can see the same tactic used or in use in these areas:
– TCP/IP stack (Trumpet Winsock)
– LAN networking (Netware)
– DRM (bundled their own DRM w/ Media player.. force it to be MS only)
– Instant Messaging (MSN Messenger)
– Internet Service (MSN/MSN Explorer)
– Web servers (Bundle IIS)
– Scripting Languages (VB Script in response to JavaScript)
– .Net Framework vs. JVM (this has bundling, but also has other issues)
The list goes on and on. The problem is that if a hardware manufacturer included something else, the hardware manufacturer got PUNISHED. MS LEVERAGED THEIR MONOPOLY to hurt other software companies and drive out competition.
That is why Microsoft is being punished. It is not a black and white, media player only issue.
I remember three years ago, Microsoft executives have suggested that in order to remove IE from Windows, Microsoft has to cease any shipment and sale of Windows 98/2000 out there because Windows will no longer function. I am waiting to see if Microsoft will put up this argument again when appeal in Europe this time.
You have been drinking the Microsoft coolaid too long.
Yeah, one company to rule them all. No government should mess with no company. What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Governments enact laws and the corporations that violate those laws are penalized.
Should we allow company X to use child labor because no government should regulate business? If you only understood that what you defend is not free market capitalism…
Go back and read the “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” by Adam Smith. You’ll be glad you did.
up in the Court of First Instance. The instance of interoperability sharing may get thrown out based on a similar case involving a medical data base. But I hope it doesn’t. Hopefully it will be shown that in this instance it is not worth the proprietary claim. It’s also not as if they are being asked to reveal source code (which is what the medical case involved) but continuously make availble information regarding interface interoperability.
I hope this verdict stands up to apeal. I think this is one of the rare times I’m cheering for the EU.
Ok, now all the EU has to do is ban the sale of MS Windows in Europe during the time it takes them to appeal.
I know this seems harsh, but I don’t think Microsoft will mind as this exactly what has happend with Lindows where I live after MS sued them. After all we’ll all equal in the eyes of the law, right ?
Kidding aside, I can’t understand why people here still defend Microsoft after they have been convicted at least twice now and have admitted it themselves. Really, how blind can you be ?
To all the MS shills and trolls posting here, this has nothing to do with control over a poxy media player. It does, however, have everything to do with control over media formats. If MS had continued unchecked it is their server software and media formats which would have become their next monopoly.
The EU has correctly identified that this is the next big battlefield and their rulings will hopefully keep the market open so I’m not forced to buy a MS tv, MS hifi, MS DVD player and MS media server a few years down the road.
This ruling should restore competition to the market place and that means we all benefit, not just Microsoft.
People who say “linux better remove their media players too!” do not understand the difference between an operating system and a distribution. They also do not understand the difference between MS’s bundling and a distribution’s bundling.
With a linux distribution, you have the choice between multiple media players, multiple text editors, multiple graphic editors, and pretty much multiple everything. The distributions do not limit what software is bundled based on who makes it. For example, Red hat does not bundle only Red Hat Media Player, Red Hat Messenger, and others with their software. You have multiple choices. You can also choose during the installation if you want to install them or not. MS does not give you this functionality. You can remove *some* later, but not all of it.
Microsoft sells an Operating System. They only bundle in their software. At one point they bundled in AOL for internet access (before MSN) because AOL payed a lot of money. Now they only bundle their stuff. You are forced to have IE, you are forced to have Media Player, and you are forced to have MSN Messenger. There is no installation screen giving you the option to install third party software (Firefox, Real Player, Quick Time, etc).
MS could have avoided all of this if they included a choice, but they do not. They would rather control all the markets. By leveraging their OS, they can enter any market they want. Because, honestly, most people are not going to go out and look for another messenger or another media player if one comes with the operating system.
Now, if they had the choice between 5 media players during the install, they MAY choose another one, or multiple ones. But, MS does not allow this and they punish the OEMs who add non-MS software to their PCs. That is leveraging your monopoly in order to destroy competition.
That is illegal, and that is why they are being punished. So, I hope you now understand the difference between an OS and a distribution.
In case you missed today’s article in the NYtimes, here’s a brief summary for you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/business/24place.html
“Microsoft was down 35 cents, to $24.15, in trading in New York yesterday, leaving it up just 10 percent from where it was when the stock market hit bottom on Oct. 9, 2002. Over that same period, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is up 41 percent, and the Goldman Sachs software index has risen 81 percent.
Measuring from the bottom may seem unfair to Microsoft, since it did not fall as far as many stocks did during the bear market and therefore had less ground to make up. But the fact is that over the last year, Microsoft has traded in a range of $23.60 to $30, a low-to-high difference of only 27 percent, the smallest range in Microsoft’s history. And over that year, while most stocks have risen, Microsoft is down 9 percent.”
Did linux distributions have all, every media player? of course not, I don’t see media player on it, whitch, in your classification is a major version!
Why every major media player? And the little company’s with minor media players don’t count to yourself?
the exchange rates change everyday…
if EUR goes up from 1.22 to 1.28 again, it’s 50 million $$ more…
So, how exacly is this going to help ‘cunsomers’ ?
A much better idea would have been to standardize on ONE streaming media format for video, so then I wouldn’t need to install three f**king media players on my computer.
“They used the bundled software to slowly bundle their own media format (WMV) and push other media software out of the market. They punished the OEM people by fining them for including other software… They have about 80% of this market now. Why? ”
Because it is better than QuickTime and Real? Because there is no compelling reason to use them in most instances?
Because it is better than QuickTime and Real? Because there is no compelling reason to use them in most instances?
Are you sure? WMV isn’t as good as MP3 or OGG, but it gains market support because MS bundles it. Then they pay a bunch of mp3 player companies to support it.
To me, Quicktime always has better video and audio quality in comparison to WMV. DIVX is better than WMV too. Real on the other hand, is not better quality.
Still the point shows they used their OS to get IE in the door and used IE and Windows to get Media Player to be the dominant player, and used Media player to make WMV a big player in the market (gaining all the time), and are starting to now use WMV to leverage in their DRM scheme.
DO YOU SEE THE TREND? Illegal use of their monopoly in order to take over other markets and push the competition out of business.
> EU ordered the unbundling of Windows Media Player within 90 days
That’s unfair. End of story.
Any OS maker should be FREE to include whatever the hell software they want with their product. It is THEIR product and having EU interfering as to what software an OS should bundle is just RIDICULOUS.
If MS is to unbudle WMP, EU should also order Apple and all Linux distos to do the same for their media players.
If Quicktime and DIVX and all that are so much better, then why does the fact that WMP is included with the OS make it an illegal use of their monopoly? If that argument held water, then why would anyone by a word processor? You have Notepad and Wordpad bundled in. You’d think Microsoft would be threatening their Office monopoly.
And where are you going to draw the line? Are you saying I should be REQUIRED to pay for WMP? What about .NET? What about Indigo/Avalon/WinFS? Who determines which technologies are ‘illegal uses of their monopoly” and which aren’t?
And besides which, Real and Quicktime have NOT been pushed out of business by WMP, so your argument is severely weakened. The only company that MIGHT have been pushed out of business in this way was Netscape, and their browser was BAD, and their other software was abandoned by AOL anyway.
No the EU won’t make Apple or Linux remove its Media Player’s for one simple reason its player’s can be removed by the User. WMP on the other hand is not a seperate app but part of the OS!!! and that is what is wrong and atleast in EU maybe OEM’s will be able to install which ever media player they choose, it all about having a choice.
If MS is to unbudle WMP, EU should also order Apple and all Linux distos to do the same for their media players.
But Apple and Linux distros are not even remotely near being monopolies! We are talking anti-trust laws here, people – the whole point of those is to punish monopolists _only_.
IMHO, if EU is really so afraid of WMP becoming a “monopoly of its own right” like IE has, then they should have ordered MS to open up the SPECS of the media format not to give STUPID orders like “don’t bundle WMP”. Opening up the specs would have helped more alternative OSes instead of EU showing such a stupid face.
>WMP on the other hand is not a seperate app but part of the OS!!!
This is absolutely fine. IF an OS vendor wants to include a media format as part of the OS to make it have better peformance/usability/whatever, then EU or anyone else should not interfere with innovation. It is like saying that BeOS should not have shipped with Tracker because Tracker is nothing but a “client” for the BeOS file system!
If an engineer thinks that this is the best way to do something, then this engineer should be ALLOWED to do it. EU has NO PLACE to interfere in engineering problems (except if they are unconsitutional, e.g. creation of bombs, clones etc).
Eugenia,
Antitrust laws *only* apply to dominant market players. I.e. our former state telco KPN is forced to lease the copper wire leading to my home to any other telco interrested at *cost price*. And this only applies to KPN, others can refuse KPN or any other party as they wish.
Apple has no monopoly. It can do whatever it wants.
Linux distros have no monopoly. They can do whatever they want. Furthermore, Linux distros have licenced the players they ship on the free market. (Under GPL that is, but that is irrelevant to the law.)
In other words, this is how the laws are. Microsoft has to obey them. End of story.
> We are talking anti-trust laws here, people – the whole point of those is to punish monopolists _only_.
This is discrimination.
Being a monopoly (or a “near monopoly” EU stated, they didn’t say that MS is a monopoly in Europe) is not unlawfull on its own right. The company have to use that monopoly in order to get punished. But I have seen nothing MS did regarding WMP that was against the others. What? Including it with the OS does not count, read above!
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_store/computer_…
It is a Multimedia Computer, comes pre-installed with Real Player and ArcSoft ShowBiz Video Editor and MUSICMATCH® Jukebox. You can find many more
So how is Microsoft limiting the choices of computer manufacturers by bundling in WMP?
No need to … MS can afford to return some of their overcharges. Come’on – it’s peanuts. Forget the fine. What matters is opening up the market to competition.
Why? To get prices down, innovation up and more selection.
Capitalism does not work unless there is at least 2 or more players of equal size. In fact, it becomes communism.
Right now the only competition MS has is it’s own prices.
Sometimes, I wonder if taking the time to articulate a well-argued position on these boards makes sense. The reasons are offered and five posts down, somebody will just claim without giving any reasons:
“This is horrible. Who does the EU think it is? Busineses can do whatever they want? And isn’t Apple doing the same?”
Your inability to present a position that is grounded in a sound understand of both market economics and the law makes all these “opinions” far less interesting. To the observer, you appear like a desperate partisan shouting, because that is the only thing that will grab people’s attention and maybe shift it away from the arguments presented thus far.
A much better idea would have been to standardize on ONE streaming media format for video, so then I wouldn’t need to install three f**king media players on my computer.
With some luck this decision will give the market (us customers with all software and hardware manufacturers) the opportunity choosing a suitable media format, not Microsoft alone.
> This is discrimination.
Eugenia, you might call it like that. That’s exactly the idea. By using some “discrimination”, the anti-trust authorities try to stimulate competition. As soon as M$ is no longer a dominant party, they are no longer bound by anti-trust laws and they can do whatever they want.
Got it?
Will a fine actually do anything or will they just jack up the price by 10% world wide to pay for it and once the fine is paid for the rest is gravy?
Its a pity because i like windows integration but agree that ms illegally muscling out the competition is not good.
RE:
That’s unfair. End of story.
Any OS maker should be FREE to include whatever the hell software they want with their product. It is THEIR product and having EU interfering as to what software an OS should bundle is just RIDICULOUS.
If MS is to unbudle WMP, EU should also order Apple and all Linux distos to do the same for their media players.
Your reply is also my option about this subject.
If M$ increases their prices they will become more vulnerable to competition. Since Linux & Openoffice have put M$ pricing under heavy pressure, I doubt that will happen.
But no one has addressed the legit arguments against this decision, such as:
1) Real/Apple have not been pushed out of business, so it isn’t like Netscape.
2) Hardware vendors have the right to bundle other media players, and DO SO, so there is nothing wrong there.
3) Partly this is because it has to do with software, but how is it in the consumer’s best interest to make a product *worse*? “Well, it will produce competition.” By eliminating it? And what else should be stripped out of Microsoft?
People are trying to pretend this is like what Microsoft supposedly did to Netscape, but it isn’t remotely similar.
But I do agree that none of this has anything to do with Linux distros.
IE is the lowest quality web browser I have ever used, and most people have no clue about all of the other web browsers because they use what comes with Windows and don’t know anything else. It’s a sad situation when low quality becomes the standard.
The EU action was interesting, and although they shouldn’t be able to tell Microsoft what to ship regarding it’s own product, sometimes these ignorant strategies are used because it is too difficult to educate consumers, it’s easier to just blow things up or hand out fines.
But I have seen nothing MS did regarding WMP that was against the others. What? Including it with the OS does not count, read above!
Maybe the EU commission thought that putting pressure on OEMs trying to make them not to include alternative media players is abusing a very-near monopoly.
Also, it is not only a matter of WMP. They also get fined for making it unnecessarily hard getting other operating systems work with Windows networking components.
Imho the commission were to lenient with Microsoft. They should have forced them to stop bundling WMP altogether. Making them sell one version with WMP and one without just isn’t enough. I have a feeling Microsoft will find a way abusing this even though the findings state such behaviour will be severly frowned upon.
1) If the EU waits it is too late. The investigation has revealed WMP is capable of putting them out of market.
2) They still pay for WMP, which is not correct.
3) More choice is good for consumers
“1) If the EU waits it is too late. The investigation has revealed WMP is capable of putting them out of market.
2) They still pay for WMP, which is not correct.
3) More choice is good for consumers”
1) So, they haven’t actually done anything wrong, but they might, so we issue this ruling? Bad.
2) What are they paying? How much? Give me a figure.
3) They already have choice, it ALREADY exists. Nothing issued today gives anyone a SINGLE BIT more choice than they had before.
Linux Media Players ARE NOT BUNDLED, You can choose to Install they, You can choose NOT To Install Them.
Anyway you can choose Your media players – Xine, Mplayer etc..
On the Other Hand WMP
Can you install wIndoors without WMP?
Can you uninstall WMP?
Same goes for Internet Exploiter
In Linux i can choose to install Lynx,Mozilla,Galeon,Epiphany,Links etc…, i can choose to install none of them.
The Same is for Outlook, Messenger and some other stuff
1) The *act* of bundling WMP has already been done, and the investigation has revealed it is putting competitors out of market.
2) M$ knows. All we know is that developing software is not free.
3) Mediaplayer is wasting system resources. Much more important it still counts into “installed user base”, which gives M$ advantage when negotiating with content providers.
Example 1: Netscape. People needed a web browser, so they got Navigator. MS realized this and started bundling IE w/ MS Plus. It didn’t catch on because people had Netscape.
When IE3 was released, it was not integrated with Windows yet. I downloaded and used it because it was better and loaded much faster than Netscape.
– TCP/IP stack (Trumpet Winsock)
– LAN networking (Netware)
I can’t imagine an OS without these basic features. Unix and other OS’ had networking included in their products long before Windows existed. Unix also had TCP/IP included. Trumpet only filled a gap while MS noticed what was missing. TCP/IP and LAN belong in the OS. You might as well demand that MS would remove their command prompt, because there were other competitiors (4DOS etc.)
– Scripting Languages (VB Script in response to JavaScript)
This is also a natural part of an OS. This is just an extention to batch files.
Why do I need to be able to uninstall WMP in order to use Real, QuickTime, etc.? Do you have to uninstall anything to install a different media player on Linux? As long as I can stop using WMP, which I can, having the code in the OS doesn’t hurt anything.
“1) The *act* of bundling WMP has already been done, and the investigation has revealed it is putting competitors out of market.
2) M$ knows. All we know is that developing software is not free.
3) Mediaplayer is wasting system resources. Much more important it still counts into “installed user base”, which gives M$ advantage when negotiating with content providers.
”
1) Who? Give a specific example.
2) Tell that to Linux developers.
3) If it isn’t turned on, no it isn’t.
The ruling is not because it is impossible to use a different media player, but to stop the unfair advantage WMP has with respect to the other players. Fair competition, got it? The EU does not want to stop anyone using WMP at all.
Well,
1st u can have multiple media players =]
2nd if i had windows[and i had them] i would choose to uninstall WMP, it uses my resources, eats up disk space, it’s bloated and slow etc….
3rd [?] you pay for WMP, it is included in M$ tax [?]
again correct me if i’m wrong
1) The EU has found, that use of WMP is rapidly accelerating since the bundling into Windows, and that other mediaplayers are in decline. They have not yet published details, but you can safely assume they will.
2) Linux distributions have found a cheap development method. It still isn’t free, but using the community is very cheap. The price you pay for a media player in a Linux distribution will therefore be lower than the price you pay for a media player integrated in Windows.
3) You are answering only to part of the question. You get an incomplete reply back. System resources include hard drive space.
Lastly, I find your answers a bit childish. Sorry to say that. Please use serious reasoning if you want to make your point.
Free software (gnu) licence one day will change, because company’s want to win money in change of something. It is in the human nature to change something for work. Developing software is not free! For example, if you buy suse, redhat, or mandrack could cost you $100 dollars… If they don’t make money they close, simple. I remember that mandrack was almost closing for finantial problems. Yes, yes, students do it for free… in the university… in home… (I concluted this) why? because they are stupid guys wanting to show that young people are different. Don’t forget, linux was grow up in an university!
1) The EU has found, that use of WMP is rapidly accelerating since the bundling into Windows, and that other mediaplayers are in decline. They have not yet published details, but you can safely assume they will.
2) Linux distributions have found a cheap development method. It still isn’t free, but using the community is very cheap. The price you pay for a media player in a Linux distribution will therefore be lower than the price you pay for a media player integrated in Windows.
3) You are answering only to part of the question. You get an incomplete reply back. System resources include hard drive space. ”
1) This is pure assumption on your part. You have done nothing to prove this.
2) This is also pure assumption. You do NOT know how much it costs to have WMP. You simply ASSUME this. Just as you simply ASSUME the Linux community is cheaper. This is NOT proven.
3) You can delete the files if you want to or use Windows Lite.
I have no interest in how you find my answers. You aren’t using ‘serious reasoning’ but simply assuming things that are unproven and asserting them as fact.
– Scripting Languages (VB Script in response to JavaScript)
This is also a natural part of an OS. This is just an extention to batch files.
You missed the point. He was referring to scripting in web browsers. Javascript is open and could have easily been incorporated into IE but instead they used their own propietary language that was not compatible, and could not be made compatible, with any other browser. This is an example of leveraging a monopoly. Coding VBscript into webpages meant that most people could make use of those features because their computer came bundled with IE but you’re SOL if you don’t have IE or Windows. You’re forced to use IE if you want those features, which should have nothing to do with what OS you use. THe last time I heard the web was supposed to be OPEN.
1) Real/Apple have not been pushed out of business, so it isn’t like Netscape.
No, they are not out of business, yet. Apple has other ways to supplement their income, and Real is now trying to suppplement their income in other ways.
But, you can admit that the market share of these two media players has drastically decreased due to the bundling of Media player. It doesn’t have to go to 0% in order for a company to go out of business. It just has to go low enough that they lose money.
2) Hardware vendors have the right to bundle other media players, and DO SO, so there is nothing wrong there.
They only do so when NOT fined by MS. Dell may be able to pay the fines, but others cannot. MS pressures the company and penalizes them if they include non-MS software. This has been proven in court, twice! That is leveraging your monopoly power and is illegal!
3) Partly this is because it has to do with software, but how is it in the consumer’s best interest to make a product *worse*? “Well, it will produce competition.” By eliminating it? And what else should be stripped out of Microsoft?
It is not in their interest to make the product worse. Their interest is to stregthen competition world-wide for software. By having competition, the market will flourish causing prices to drop. Innovation and product improvement will increase in order to try to beat the competition.
People are trying to pretend this is like what Microsoft supposedly did to Netscape, but it isn’t remotely similar.
But, this IS what MS did to Netscape. But, the market for video players has multiple competitors, where as the web browser market pretty much had only one.
Do notice that most sites only offer WMV format for streaming video. Real and Quicktime are disappearing.
Yes, by reading this article open source is a monopoly in thailand, malaysia…
LINK:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5177455.html
You can read in it:
» Faced with a program by the government of Thailand to provide citizens with low-cost PCs running open-source source software, Microsoft responded with a special $40 package with scaled-back versions of Windows XP and Office. A similar deal was recently extended to Malaysia.
Free software (gnu) licence one day will change, because company’s want to win money in change of something. It is in the human nature to change something for work. Developing software is not free! For example, if you buy suse, redhat, or mandrack could cost you $100 dollars… If they don’t make money they close, simple.
You are forgetting a major cross section of Linux distributions, like Debian, Gentoo, Arch, and others. They are COMMUNITY projects. They accept donations but they are not companies. They will continue to operate even if no one pays for their Linux.
> I have no interest in how you find my answers. You aren’t using ‘serious reasoning’ but simply assuming things that are unproven and asserting them as fact.
Wrong. I do not assume *by default* that the EU investigation is rubbish. You seem to.
People, please ignore this troll.
But a larger issue there is whether Microsoft should be forced to reveal its APIs. Why should it? Their APIs are theirs, and they should be able to do anything they want with them, whether that be to disclose none, some or all of them. Shouldn’t they?
Yes, yes: “But interoperability!” Why *must* anyone’s products be interoperable with MS’? And there is fine interoperability already anyway: Interix/SFU, Samba, Cygwin, etc. So what?
No. How would that be possible? Open Source is not a company it’s an idea. There are several different Open Source vendors. Besides that, open source uses open protocols so anyone could make a system that is compatible. They are not using their status in the market for leverage.
People will read or ignore what they wish. If you have to appeal to people like that, you are losing the argument.
I do not assume the EU investigation is rubbish. What I do is ask for facts to be given, and you haven’t given any.
If you would like to, please do so.
Discussion is impossible with you.
1) The EU has found, that use of WMP is rapidly accelerating since the bundling into Windows, and that other mediaplayers are in decline. They have not yet published details, but you can safely assume they will.
Reply:
1) This is pure assumption on your part. You have done nothing to prove this.
My reply:
Yes, they have found this out. It is in their official statement. The person is not assuming at all.
Here is the statement: http://news.com.com/2100-1014-5178465.html?tag=nl
Here are the relevant quotes:
Microsoft abused its market power by deliberately restricting interoperability between Windows PCs and non-Microsoft work group servers, and by tying its Windows Media Player (WMP), a product where it faced competition, with its ubiquitous Windows operating system.
This illegal conduct has enabled Microsoft to acquire a dominant position in the market for work group server operating systems, which are at the heart of corporate IT networks, and risks eliminating competition altogether in that market. In addition, Microsoft’s conduct has significantly weakened competition on the media player market.
The ongoing abuses act as a brake on innovation and harm the competitive process and consumers, who ultimately end up with less choice and facing higher prices.
“They only do so when NOT fined by MS. Dell may be able to pay the fines, but others cannot. MS pressures the company and penalizes them if they include non-MS software. This has been proven in court, twice! That is leveraging your monopoly power and is illegal! ”
They did that back in the days of them driving Netscape into the ground.
Do you know of instances where this has happened with WMP? I mean, specific cases? In the summary of their decision, they don’t claim this that I can see. All they do is say that the ‘tieing’ BY ITSELF is illegal.
However, I have only read the summary.
“Being a monopoly (or a “near monopoly” EU stated, they didn’t say that MS is a monopoly in Europe) is not unlawfull on its own right.”
Abusing the monopoly position however, is. And that’s what is analyzed to be happening here. Like you put it: end of story.
With this ruling, people will be able to chose the video player they want after they’ve installed their OS and find they need such.
“1) If the EU waits it is too late. The investigation has revealed WMP is capable of putting them out of market.”
What if Microsoft delays the outcome? They’re appealing for a higher court for now.
The settlement option didn’t differ much from the current court ruling, so am wondering why the negotiations have stopped. After this has been fought out in a higher court, the question is what has been changed in the meantime and wether that’ll be taken into the final jurisdiction. I think not, because that would require more investigation into these recent actions which means there’s always a time in which there’s a Free go to do what ye like, which can easily be exploited.
That said, with also the SCO wild-claim-say-what-ye-want-we-will-prove-it-years-later case, i’m beginning to see more and more arguments which indicate flaws in our current legal systems. It costs too much time, these investigations don’t go fast enough to influence the dynamic culture and trends on the net. It’s the same with copyright infringement on the net. That’s unstoppable too; breaked once, runs everywhere.
We either need more control and tighter regulations or we need to accept the current state as-is. I’m more pro the latter, but that goes either way (thus including copyright and patents reforms). Keeping the moves of the RIAA, Eldred vs. Ashcroft and other Powers that be in mind i see no indication the latter is going to be realized…
The reason this is such a big deal compared to Apple or Linux is that Microsoft commands such a huge marketshare and that all they have to do to gain a huge chunk of any software market is bundle that software with Windows.
Quicktime can easily be removed from Mac OS X, any media player can easily be removed from Linux. Microsoft however chose to make Windows Media Player a integrated part of the windows operating system and shove it in users faces whenever possible. Microsoft has such a big marketshare they need to be responsible with anything they do with this.
This 600 some million $ fine is just a slap on the wrist really. We were finally ready to break up Microsoft then Bush had to come in. We need to break up microsoft and prevent them from bundling anything they want with it. Apple may have quicktime, but they don’t shove it your face and continuously reset it to be the default player for certain tasks. VideoLAN has been my default player for AVI’s and it has stayed that way since 10.2.
I think it’s great that the Europeans finally did something about Microsoft seeing as how the US won’t do anything about it now and I say this as an American.
They are a convicted monopoly. They have to play by a different set of rules in order to ensure innovation and competition or they could literally wipe out the entire market except for them.
If they were not a monopoly, they very well would not have to open their API’s up. Note: They do not have to open the API’s up completely, but they have to publish documentation on how to allow a 3rd party program to interface with them the same as a MS program would.
The software you listed, samba in particular, only work because of years of reverse engineering and experimentation. Samba could have been fully working much easier with the publication of the protocols.
YES, yes, FSF (free software fundation) is the responsible for that monopoly! Free software is a threat to microsoft!
RE:No. How would that be possible?
GNU is a licence open source which is an idea from someone.
RE:Open Source is not a company it’s an idea.
There is only one free software fundation.
RE:There are several different Open Source vendors.
Can I make a commercial software with that code?
RE:Besides that, open source uses open protocols so anyone could make a system that is compatible.
When IE3 was released, it was not integrated with Windows yet. I downloaded and used it because it was better and loaded much faster than Netscape.
The majority of people did not download it. The majority of people still used Netscape. Only when IE was bundled with Windows did the majority people start using it by default. Remember, the majority of people are lazy and will use what they have, no matter what the quality.
– TCP/IP stack (Trumpet Winsock)
– LAN networking (Netware)
I can’t imagine an OS without these basic features. Unix and other OS’ had networking included in their products long before Windows existed. Unix also had TCP/IP included. Trumpet only filled a gap while MS noticed what was missing. TCP/IP and LAN belong in the OS. You might as well demand that MS would remove their command prompt, because there were other competitiors (4DOS etc.)
I will not debate whether these should be in the OS or not. I agree they should be included. The example was that MS bundled the TCP/IP stack, and that essentially put Trumpet Winsock out of business. It is an example of how bundling is bad.
Netware is a much worse example. In Windows 95, MS introduced its own networking protocol, but included support for both (netware was #1 at the time). By the time 98 had rolled around, MS’s own protocol had gained a much larger market share. MS actually REMOVED the Netware support from 98 and only provided support for their own protocol. They used their Windows market share to leverage their own networking into the market, and then got rid of netware’s. You can note that this almost put Novell out of business.
That is a perfect example of leveraging your monopoly.
YES, yes, FSF (free software fundation) is the responsible for that monopoly! Free software is a threat to microsoft!
In above message:
» Faced with a program by the government of Thailand to provide citizens with low-cost PCs running open-source source software, Microsoft responded with a special $40 package with scaled-back versions of Windows XP and Office. A similar deal was recently extended to Malaysia.
RE:No. How would that be possible?
What if Microsoft delays the outcome? They’re appealing for a higher court for now.
There is no such thing as appealing for a higher court, since the EU antitrust commisioner is not a court. What will in fact happen is that Microsoft will sue the EU commision for the European court.
I have good hope that Microsoft won’t be able to delay, since it is easy for the commision to make clear that their is need a for urgence, since Microsoft is still abusing it’s monopoly, and every day they continue to do so is bad for competitors.
If the court agrees that there is urgence, they will not delay execution of the ruling.
The settlement option didn’t differ much from the current court ruling, so am wondering why the negotiations have stopped.
Rumour is that Microsoft was not willing to agree to altering it’s policy to bundling software in Windows in the future. In the end, the commision decided this was unacceptable.
“Yes, they have found this out. It is in their official statement. The person is not assuming at all.
Here is the statement: http://news.com.com/2100-1014-5178465.html?tag=nl ”
Oh, that it is in their statement, yes, it is certainly true that it is in the summary. But their summary statement seems to be based on the argument, “It is tied into the OS, the OS is a monopoly, the act of tieing hurts competition, therefore, it is illegal.”
But what are the SPECIFICS of how the competition is hurt? (Side question: has the full report been released yet? I’ve only seen the summary). If there is nothing more than “well, according to an abstract economic theory, in principle, this act of tieing hurts competition”, I don’t see how that is very strong.
Instead of trying to dictate how they write software, which will be never ending, if they felt that the very act of tieing hurts competition, they should have ordered them to be broken up, (or say they can’t do business in EU unless they do, since I doubt they can order an American company to be broken up) like the US did to AT&T.
After serval years on this case: They finaly did it!
I am so happy about it! What I like is the fact, that Mcirosoft is forced to open serval protocolls.
The 497’200’000 € they have to pay is not much, compared with what the EU could force Microsoft to pay.
Anyway… I don’t care about the fine. But the 120 days for opening their protocolls is perfect! This will finally open more competition on the Windows platform and in manny other areas.
YES, yes, FSF (free software fundation) is the responsible for that monopoly! Free software is a threat to microsoft!
No, you are wrong. But yes, free software is a threat to Microsoft. So was Netscape, Real, and Apple. Microsoft always fears they could lose market share or profits due to a company expanding their interests. So, they will sweep in on a market and leverage the market’s they dominate in order to force other companies out. But, the FSF does not do this at all.
MS’s price cutting in Asia shows that MS is a monopoly. They set an artificially high price on Windows (80+% profit margin!) because they are really the only major desktop OS player. Yet, when they face competition, they cut the price drastically ($40 per copy instead of $300).
THAT IS WHAT COMPETITION DOES! MS would have to charge $40 everywhere if they had competition. Plus, they would have to make upgrades worth it.
Instead of trying to dictate how they write software, which will be never ending, if they felt that the very act of tieing hurts competition, they should have ordered them to be broken up, (or say they can’t do business in EU unless they do, since I doubt they can order an American company to be broken up) like the US did to AT&T
Yes, they should have been broken up. We would have two smaller companies that could compete with each other and other people.
AT&T used similar tactics with phone lines and calls. They would deny competition access to lines, and other items. They used their monopoly to keep out competition. The same way MS does.
Right. Exactly. They should have done nothing or remedied the situation, instead of trying to come up with this decision that seems to get them involved with software development, and which doesn’t do anything substantive (I mean, the fine is a huge sum of money, but since the amount of money Microsoft has is gargantuan, it almost makes no difference.)
But what are the SPECIFICS of how the competition is hurt? (Side question: has the full report been released yet? I’ve only seen the summary). If there is nothing more than “well, according to an abstract economic theory, in principle, this act of tieing hurts competition”, I don’t see how that is very strong.
How about the fact that everyone here is talking about only 2 other media players : Real and Quicktime. Quicktime has only survived because of a major backer that totally controls their own platform, Real on the other hand is in real trouble.
Microsoft managed to take an emerging market, contain it (no new competitors have emerged) and slowly suffocate the competition. This despite the fact that the online video/media market has grown considerably these last few years. There IS no media player market today because MS crushed it some time ago (the only real movement in this market has been from the ‘enthousiast’ open source side)
Any time a new must-have (aka killer) application emerges, MS moves in for the kill for fear of losing total control over the desktop. Examples ? Java->J++/.Net , icq -> MSMessenger , Netscape -> Internet Explorer , Real Player -> WMP , Eudora -> Outlook Express
For all the complaining people do about outsourcing, think of how many programmers lost their jobs at these companies because MS were afraid of competition.
“If the court agrees that there is urgence, they will not delay execution of the ruling.”
Thanks for the clarifications (are you a lawyer or lawyer in spe?). That’s interesting. I didn’t knew that was possible. Is this only possible in Europe, or also in other countries? In the . USA both the SCO vs. IBM case and the SCO vs. Novell case hearings have been and are delayed several times while there is an urgu for the outcome of this case. There is an urge not only because a group of people are being accused and (i call it terrorized, sorry) of doing something illegally, but also for the 2 parties involved. Especially SCO, who have dependancies on this case, too.
(IBM’s latest delaying is probably, in correlation with SCO’s latest delaying because it is very likely SCO needs arguments from IBM’s statements — though i don’t remember which ones)
Groklaw: Washington State’s Senator Murray Asks Bush to “Engage” the EU
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040324015802193
Groklaw: The EU Commission’s Microsoft Decision
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004032407032848
If you really want MS to be dealt with properly, then vote Bush out of office. His office appointed the new judge that was soft on MS. The Bush administration came out and said they really don’t want to pursue MS.
Additionally, Kotar-Kelley (the judge) has said recently that the MS ruling she made is not effective or working. Because, as we all know, it is a joke.
The only way they will be broken up is if a new American case is brought up. That probably won’t happen because MS intentionally delayed the old case as much as possible to hurt the states and cost them millions.
I’m pretty sure the EU doesn’t have the power to break up MS since they are an American based company. But, they do have the power to put restrictions on them if they want to sell software in the EU, and that is precisely what they did.
There’s talk about Microsoft being discriminated against by this “EU Slap”, but I still don’t get what keeps companies like HP, Dell and IBM from selling PC’s with -for instance- Linux preinstalled.
Sorry for being ill-informed on this, but I remember to have read that Microsoft doesn’t like that and somehow manages to keep these companies from doing just that.
I don’t see why these barring mechanisms haven’t been investigated into.
As long as this isn’t clear, it’s too soon to put Microsoft in the role of evidently discriminated victim, IMHO, for let’s be honest:
There are Windows alternatives of quality which don’t justify the present dominance of Windows in PC’s.
First , a disclaimer: I am Microsoft-free since 1999 and a devout Debian user (give it a try!
. However:
– I think governments should *not* interfere with free market. It is best to leave it alone.
– I strongly believe that at least part of the reason behind this decision is EU not wanting to be dependant on American products, an OS in this case. That’s understandable, BTW.
– I do not see anything evil with bundling package X with Windows. Heck, I haven’t seen Windows in a long time.
That was my mind. Now my heart:
Bill G. should be shot, torn to pieces & castrated.
Now I am really torn apart…
Sorry for being ill-informed on this, but I remember to have read that Microsoft doesn’t like that and somehow manages to keep these companies from doing just that.
I don’t see why these barring mechanisms haven’t been investigated into.
These have been investigated. They were found guilty of them in the first place in America. The punishment had so many loopholes and was so weak, that they never really had to stop doing it.
The methods they keep windows and MS products only on new machines:
1. Windows tax on all computers with or without windows in order to sell any computer with Windows.
2. Threaten to pull licenses if other software/OSs are offered.
3. Charge higher rates if other software/OSs are offered.
That is some. There are more tricks they pull, but that is some of their crazy licensing. Of course, if you want to make it as an OEM, you have to sell windows since its on 90% of pcs. Basically, they say “that isn’t MS only so you are going to be punished” and actually hurt the OEM. Since they are monopoly, the OEMs had no choice but to go along with it.
Yes, HP and others are starting to offer PCs now that the tax has been, at least, relieved some.
“[…] MS’s price cutting in Asia shows that MS is a monopoly. They set an artificially high price on Windows (80+% profit margin!) because they are really the only major desktop OS player. Yet, when they face competition, they cut the price drastically ($40 per copy instead of $300).
[…]”
Good point! For the readers who’d like to understand this theory futher see the definition of monopoly and how it is abused at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
While i think about it, these practices have been reported not only in Asia. I’ve read about this practice applied in the situation where a company ran “Open Source”. Microsoft wanted to negotiate and putted forth they’d get Windows for free when they’d wish. The company chose not to, and Microsoft apparently thought the company was running Linux, while they actually ran FreeBSD. I read about this in the document “Why I hate MS” at http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
There’s talk about Microsoft being discriminated against by this “EU Slap”, but I still don’t get what keeps companies like HP, Dell and IBM from selling PC’s with -for instance- Linux preinstalled.
That’s easy : MS that’s who. Back in the day a company sold pc’s that double booted BeOS. Only they had to ship with a floppy to ‘enable’ the BeOS partition because MS had threatend to revoke their Windows license if the pc even offered to boot into a competing os at startup.
Piss MS off and kiss your (pc retail) business goodbye, that’s the sad truth of the matter right now. Even the big boys are VERY careful when confronting MS.
This is why we have court cases like this one and it is also why they are a good thing.
I don’t see why these barring mechanisms haven’t been investigated into.
AFAIK the beos lawsuit is still tied up somewhere by MS’ legal specialists.
Interesting info, thanks!
LOL, in fact I recently stripped one of my PC’s of Windows and let it run BeOS Pro as its only OS !
The actual decision doesn’t bother me, I never use Real/WMP/QT anyway. My media requirements are limited to playing a few MP3 on foobar.
What I am curious about, and maybe someone knows, is at what point would MS shed its monopoly status and be able to start bundling apps again?
Only reason I ask, and it might be a dumb question, is that quite a few of the posts mention that they have to play by different rules because of their monopoly status.
At what point is that status removed? Eg If Linux, or something else, or a combination of other systems gain a large market share then when can MS start to compete under the same rules as everyone else?
Do they have to have a monopoly on a macro or micro scale before these special rules apply? Eg Can MS bundle WMP if they are trying to sell to a client that currently uses something else? (Munich?)
Guess I’m just not very comfortable with the idea of “special” rules, or governments manipulating businesses in order to artificially generate competition. Then again socialists seem to love the idea of cradle-to-grave government interference.
Thanks for the clarifications (are you a lawyer or lawyer in spe?).
Nope, computer science student who has had a course on computers & law. So don’t take it for legal advice or something.
That’s interesting. I didn’t knew that was possible. Is this only possible in Europe, or also in other countries?
In Dutch law (my country), if there is urgence, you start a case called “kort geding”, it’s hard to translate, but “kort” means “short”. If you can prove urgence, the case will be handled by the judge very fast, usually within one to three weeks. The Lindows vs. Microsoft case is a good example, the judge did agree with Microsoft that Lindows’ trademark abuse was hurting Microsoft each day and should not be allowed to conitnue. English translation of the ruling available from the Lindows site. If you cannot prove urgence, the judge will reject your claims, and you will have to start a normal case.
In U.S. law, a judge can issue a preliminary injunction if there is urgence. This is part of a normal case, not a separate case.
In the . USA both the SCO vs. IBM case and the SCO vs. Novell case hearings have been and are delayed several times while there is an urgu for the outcome of this case. There is an urge not only because a group of people are being accused and (i call it terrorized, sorry) of doing something illegally, but also for the 2 parties involved. Especially SCO, who have dependancies on this case, too.
I believe this is because no party has pleaded that there is urgence. However, I think it is possible to stop some of SCO’s activities with this (i.e. SCO is hurting Red hat business each day). It has been done in Germany, and it can surely be done in other countries.
“The Lindows vs. Microsoft case is a good example, the judge did agree with Microsoft that Lindows’ trademark abuse was hurting Microsoft each day and should not be allowed to conitnue.”
Ah yes, that took them about a month till the case was dealt in court. If it takes about the same time in this case we’ll see the results of this court ruling (when unchanged) in end respectively end july and end august.
—
“I think governments should *not* interfere with free market. It is best to leave it alone.”
I agree! However, if governments would not, that would render Microsoft’s business model useless — except for their service and support part. This is because copyright is not part of humanity, it is a fiction set of rules regulated BY the government(s). We can see proof in our current society that its’ rules set is based on a fata morgana. The denial of zero marginal costs is in the hands of organisations like the MPAA, BSA and RIAA who terrorize little children just because they found a way how they can spread art and knowledge for a cost near to 0 (because of bandwidth). Yet another example, which is instead legally based on copyright, is licenses which work together with the current set of rules and regulations. This phenomenom is what we call copyleft with GPL being an example of that.
Copyright is also merely an example of regulations. Patents is yet another example.
Other than WMP9 and winamp5 (wich is free) everything else is either total crap (real, itunes) or very limited (bsplayer, mpc, etc).
Oh get over it, it’s perfectly fair.
That’s very biased, ain’t it? Although i don’t claim i either agree or disagree with your statement, i do know that watching a Real or Quicktime stream sometimes requires you to use one of these specific players. It is illegal to use these proprietary codecs in a 3rd party application. Given that there quite some Quicktime and Real streams over here…
(There are really cultural differences in this regard. For example -afaik- AIM isn’t popular in the Netherlands; MSN is THE standard here.)
Also it doesn’t really go against the essence of the court ruling. That choice should be forced upon the customer instead that a choice is forced upon the customer after which the customer can chose — ofcourse that put together with the “near-monopoly position of Microsoft”. Wether there is a (valid) choice right now or not doesn’t matter.
We don’t know what’ll happen in the future either. For example OGG Theora is near to beta quality, and who knows what’ll happen futher. Perhaps this stimulates companies to start in this market? Who knows what Real will do now? We’ll see.
I see this question under a different point of view.
If you are a wheel producer, for example firestone, is perfectly fair to gain the monopoly.
With the monopoly you get a lot of advantages, you’ll have a good distribution system all around the world and so on.
Go on, since you’re the monopolist you start putting in a newer rim model… a custom model that works only with your wheels.
Someone tells you’re acting dirty but no one act and you start gaining grounds making your wheels more responsive with your rims.
You become the first rims producer all over the world!
Then you start thinking about making your own cars… wow! great idea… all you’ve to do is stopping older rim models, begin the mass production of a new rim with a strange locking mechanism, protect the specifications as “industrial secret” and put out your car.
Of course someone will take another car but most people will be stuck with your wheels and your rims and they will buy your car because it’s easy to find.
This is related to how a monopoly could lead to another monopoly and, at the present time, EU says that Desktop PC monopolist (AKA browser monopolist) is trying to use his position to gain another market.
Before telling something about the uselessness of QT or Real think that while MPEG2 went well for DVD MS proposed his WMV for next generation DVD players…
…so what ? so maybe they’ll try to break into the consumer electronics market using WMV… if WMV gains some ground!
This isn’t really different from java facts… they embraced, extended and tried to destroy (and, at last, replace) java focusing on their “good idea”: 90% of desktop PC use our software, we make standards just packaging things!
A successfull story about this policy was the HTML vs IE debate… at last IE IS (well, WAS) the standard maker… if IE puts something in, everyone start coding with that!
I’m having a lot of problems with a friend of mine, a MCSA, that still says that DHCP isn’t the right way to assign IP on a private (yet large and expandable) network… APIPA (I think this is the MS name about their private IP auto assigning system) is… he just doesn’t understand that non Win machines won’t work with that!
This will probably be effective in about 10 years …. then what good will that do? MS will keep this sucker bottled up in appeals for the next decade. Then if the remidies surviove the numerous court challenges the most certainly will have diminished impotence by then.
Nothing to see here folks – its business as usual!