The European Commission’s order for Microsoft Corp. to ship a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player could stifle innovation and help Microsoft’s rivals instead of promoting fair competition, the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust chief said Wednesday.In the meantime, EC erects toll booth for Microsoft’s open source rivals, says TheRegister.
The battle between Lindows.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. over the Lindows trademark took an interesting turn today when U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle proposed a deal in which Microsoft can proceed with an appeal of his earlier ruling that a jury must decide whether “windows” had been a generic term before it was trademarked and Microsoft would cease its efforts to get foreign courts to stop the sales of Lindows until the U.S. case is decided.
Other sites also report about the attorney for San Diego’s Lindows.com told a federal judge in Seattle yesterday that the company would be forced to shut down its Web site if the court didn’t intervene in an ongoing trademark dispute with software giant Microsoft.
God forbid Microsoft should lose a point or two of that 90+% marketshare. Really, it’s tragic. No, not the EU decision, the fact that this administration is effectively working for MS now.
The only thing Microsoft has innovated is in bringing the most sophisticated and highest level of unethical business practices to the computing industry.
It is well documented that Microsoft has stolen almost all their intellectual property and then used their financial muscle to stomp on anyone who challenges them.
I find it quite telling to see just how bought the USDOJ is. It looks like Microsoft’s spyware deal with the USDOJ ended up giving Microsoft a ton of clout with the US government.
Don’t think that the U.S. Department of Justice has any jurisdiction
in the European Union. So it seems wiser that they mind their own
business. They messed this whole MS-affair up in the first place.
It’s becoming more and more apparent that business and politics
are becoming dangeriously intertwined upthere.
AvS
“Welcome visitor!
Thank you for your interest in technology information from International Data Group, the leader in the field. We are eager to serve your information needs.
We regret that we can not satisfy this specific content request because it originates from a source that is not authorized to redistribute our material. Please access all of our rich store of technical knowledge directly by clicking on any of the following links:”
looks like osnews isn’t “authorized”
http://www.theregister.com/content/4/36520.html
Microsoft has been given the green light by the EU to patent and charge royalties for their interfaces, which means that they’ll be able to make money off of competators attempting to provide interoperability with Microsoft products, as well as open source projects attempting to do the same.
“Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate in a statement also said the record €497.2 million ($613 million) fine levied on Microsoft by the European Commission (EC) is “unfortunate.” It surpasses fines the Commission has imposed on price-fixing cartels and that may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities, Pate said.”
So basically either price-fixing is the lesser of two evils, or what Microsoft is doing is worse than price-fixing. Gee, I can see why that would be “unfortunate”.
“”Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing ‘code removal’ remedies may produce unintended consequences,” Pate said. “Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by ‘dominant’ companies.”
And yet that was the basis for the DOJ suit. Talk about turning on a dime.
“The U.S. settlement with Microsoft provides “clear and effective protection” for competition and consumers by preventing misconduct by Microsoft that would inhibit competition in the area of middleware applications such as the Web browser and the media player, Pate said.”
“Clear and effective”? The web browser and media player isn’t the only place that protection is needed, and as far as misconduct. How’s that whole SCO thing working out?
“”The U.S. experience tells us that the best antitrust remedies eliminate impediments to the healthy functioning of competitive markets without hindering successful competitors or imposing burdens on third parties, which may result from the EC’s remedy,” he said.”
The removal of “impediments” has been an outside force, not anything grand that the DOJ has done. At best the whole thing raised awareness of the situation.
“The EC’s decision to require Microsoft to share details of the technologies used by its server products to communicate with Windows clients is similar to the U.S. approach to curtail Microsoft’s anticompetitive behavior, Pate noted.”
”
Like anything the devil is in the details. What are the terms of this “sharing”? Is it a reoccuring cost?
I really don’t see it as bad as long as they don’t charge ludicrous prices. Companies can afford them. As for open source… Well, I guess they had false hopes. Then again, I believe it’s not by cloning them that they’ll get further so it might actually be a good thing.
“As for open source… Well, I guess they had false hopes. Then again, I believe it’s not by cloning them that they’ll get further so it might actually be a good thing. ”
The people who use SAMBA would disagree with you on both points. And yes people, SAMBA is used in some Windows shops.
If the US government refuses to put MS in its place, then somebody else will I guess.
I don’t see how these people could hope of better interoperability if Microsoft is asking for money for their documentation. They’ll probably require a NDA or something like that. To what I understand of the current law, the SAMBA team couldn’t really code openly as they would inevitably disclose some parts of the documentation covered by the NDA in the comments. And I still stand my position on cloning. It might be good for these people but it won’t persuade the average Joe to consider OSS software. I know many people that don’t consider Linux (or any other alternative OS) because they claim they don’t need something that is providing exactly the same functionality as they have now. Anyway, I won’t elaborate further as this has nothing to do with the current topic… and it’s only my opinion, not a fact.
…at how hypocritical the users are in this forum. You can’t have it both ways people. Either you have competition or you have a monopoly. Look, MS doesn’t have a monopoly of the entire computer industry. Yes, they have a monopoly of the desktop OSes, but I thought that’s what Linux was for? To provide an alternative. So what if Linux becomes a monopoly wouldn’t that stiffle innovation? Please, explain to me why preserving innovation is bad?
“So what if Linux becomes a monopoly wouldn’t that stiffle innovation? Please, explain to me why preserving innovation is bad? ”
Well one:
Having a monopoly in and itself isn’t illegal.
Gaining one through illegal means is.
Two Linux could never be a monopoly (think about it).
Three using one’s monopoly status to leverage oneself into another market is illegal.
“Innovation” is being used as a diversionary tactic from the above.
Uhhh… a free market is a market without restrictions.
I agree, it should support a free market, but you’re wrong in alluding to the existence of a free market hurting MS.
It is impossible for Linux to become a monopoly. No one company owns Linux and every company that wants to can become a distributer of Linux for the grand total Costs of setup fees. What is a Setup Fee. Well it is the total cost it takes to get together programmers, create a distro, create cd’s and ship them out the door.
Also Linux doesn’t bundle’s it’s media player and inferior web browser with the kernel, you usally get Konqueror and Mozilla, and Galeon with a distrobution.
As for the $600 million dollar fine. MS can write a check for nearly 100 times that amount, and 10 tens without sweating to much. Hell Apple has 5 Billion in the bank. The fine is meaningless, without the rest.
Microsoft is the one who stifles innovation.
even funnier, send this to that judge— The story farther down the main page about all the tactics the court in 1997 didn’t know about.
Yo, 600 million isn’t enough, but you talk about problems?
Microsoft BIG HUGE money hoarders. They wanna get a delay before they pay, they want this want that.
They should be merely happy with their continued survival. It’s better than what they do to others.
The US should charge Microsoft of Perjury, Enterprise Corruption, Maintaining a monopoly, and generally, ticking me off, with their “oh, we’re 90bn worth of cash, but we want a DELAY”
Screw them, they’re lucky their facilities ain’t been razed yet.
If Linux is so great then people will use it on its own merits. Sounds like the linux zealots are worried that people might actually choose windows over Linux. But since the EU’s case is purely political, it’s not really about choice or competition at all.
pay off deficit a bit, secondly, fund projects, and use it for mini-enterprise loans.
To prop up commercial competition.
Be was the only one that wasn’t “in the fold” and head of operations in US.
Since when does the DOJ lissen to any comment or critics from the EU?
They never did and will probably never do. And in my oppinion the EU will lissen to the DOJ, but at the end the EU is doing what they think is right for their area.
And I don’t care if Microsoft is from USA or not. If they want to do business in EU, then they have to follow the rules of the EU.
Look: I am from Switzerland and I don’t like that serval Swiss Banks are sued in the USA for their role in the world war. But to be honest: Probably they diserve it! But this is my personal oppinion. However… if the Swiss Bank wants to do business in USA, then they have to follow the rule of the USA. Beeing an Swiss Bank does not guarante them to do what ever they want in other countries. Even if they have some special deal with the Swiss governement or not.
If they did wrong or not, I don’ know and I think that this is an issue wich needs to be found out by the law. And this is exactly what happens in the USA.
And the same does apply to Microsoft.
If Microsoft does not like that, then they should stop doing business in the EU. It up to them.
since this will be in appeals court for years nothing is set in stone.
I’m not sure what is wrong with sarcasm. I think it gets a meaning across succintley in many cases. Why are people moderated down who use this form of effective communication?
>since this will be in appeals court for years nothing is set in stone.<
You don’t get it , do you? The verdict was issued by a commision, not by an “ordinary” court , therefore there can’t be any appeal.Of course, MS will sue the commision, but fact remains.For the time being, MS has to comply.
Don’t know what the big fuss though, is only a media player. I’m personally more interested how they will comply with the 120 & 90 days for the other issues. Still to watch.
Im a SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ^ 1 Billion sick of this rhetoric bullshit from M$ – and now the DOJ is on it too…
Help the competitors of Microsoft? I thought one of the roles of M$ was to actually prevent monopolistic entities such as the company they are now defending – obviously that will help the competitiors that fight over the 10% or so of market share in desktop OSes that M$ does not hold
Stifle innovation? What, I really do like the new wave of exploits found in my copy of Windows every single day. It’s true – M$ can design footholds for exploits and Virii like no other!
Half of the shit in M$ products is copied from somebody else’s idea – site down, shut up and listen to the BS you are actually saying Microsoft.
I don’t think we will see a better example of hypocrisy from the DOJ for some time people – relish the moment!
“could stifle innonvation”.
I can’t spot how unbundling WMP could stifle innovation. On the contrary. And the DOJ does not elaborate. Hmmm.
“help Microsoft’s rivals …
Yeah – that’s hopefully the reason for the entire case. To help other players along to rid the market from dominance by any one player in particualr. Just as MS got help from shoppers in becoming the most dominant.
sentence continued
“…instead of promoting fair competition.”.
Also this sentence is some how loaded in favor of MS. It’s like reverse psychology.
Looks to me like MS has the DOJ pocketed. How do they do it? Amazing.
“If Linux is so great then people will use it on its own merits. Sounds like the linux zealots are worried that people might actually choose windows over Linux. But since the EU’s case is purely political, it’s not really about choice or competition at all.”
That last part may be right. The other part seems misinformed. People DO use linux on it’s own merits – tens of millions of them, worldwide. The barrier to more people using them is manyfold. One is lack of applications. Another (and this is what the linux “zealots” are carping about ) is that Microsoft has such a penetration in the business world that interoperability becomes a serious problem. If nobody can read and write MS Office documents, it’s a real hassle to try to send and receive documents between your linux computer and your customer’s or vender’s Windows/Office setup. Fortunately, OpenOffice and Ximian Evolution(with the office connector) and Samba can manage a fair level of compatibility. The problem with this ruling is that it puts this interoperability at stake, to some extent. Wine and Samba might just be doomed. Since the penalty is just a slap on the wrist financially, I’d almost rather they win the appeal and lose the ability to charge for the use of their API’s. If anything they should aim to be more open to promote interoperability, but of course this would threaten their market share.
Regards,
pete
the justice department is now parotting Microsoft’s long term talking point that anti-trust action will “stifle innovation?”
Even if they’re in microsoft’s pocket, can’t they at least think up their own words?
this is just another pointless attack at MS, the thing they did that actualy stiffled competiton was the boot loader and OEM contracts. Included IE or WMP does not hurt competition. The competition just has to compete, and no one has, netscape went to crap which let IE grow, now it’s better but has to market it’self to come back. But there is no marketing there, so it won’t happen. No one has come out with something to compete with WMP, winamp and real are horrible. iTunes is great for music and probably is growing, but then apple knows what they are doing. Sure someone would like to have the option to not have WMP installed, but really, it doesn’t freaking matter. MS should be including all the functions they can. Aside from being there from install MS does nothing to stop another company from making a great player. WMP isn’t even that great and it’s better then alternatives. If you have soemthing better, you could always advertise and make an effort at getting people to use it instead of just bitching.
It’s really got to the point were people just blindly want MS destroyed but have zero good reason. MS is far from a great company, and done plenty of rotten things, but they don’t deserve being destroyed for giving people what they want and expanding there line. I’m glad WMP is in there, otherwise i would have to find something else or go installing it post fact. People who are drooling MS haters need to go and say what they think should happen to MS and how things like including IE and WMP are bad in a crowed of normal computer users and see the look of “what the hell is wrong with you” coming back at you. If everyone hated what MS does MS would change, but they know how they have windows is what people want, even if the few crazys hate it. Sure there are things I would like see changed, but I’m logical anough to realize what i would want probably isn’t what most people would want.
Really. They have a bloody cheek saying this. As someone else said, they should mind their own business. Wait, they’re already busy minding Microsoft’s business…
Whose ‘innovation’ will it ‘stifle’? These terms are utterly meaninglessness. For all I know, they could really mean “the EC’s commission will bumfuck my friend’s uncle’s dancing pet mini-elephant”. If they mean it would reduce Microsoft’s research dept. budget by 0.01%, well the point of the action is to *help their competitiors*.
If they really cared about the state of the computing industry they would have ripped Microsoft to shreds years ago. Obviously they are just greedy bastards. People of America! Get rid of them. You always talk about the freedom of having guns, well here’s a good excuse to exercise that freedom.
Meh whatever.
What will happen in 90 days when MS doesn’t comply? (I assume they won’t, it’s just like them to do that). Either: 1) it will get interesting, or 2) it’ll fade away, and everyone will be distracted by something else, and MS gets away with it (probably by buying them out).
U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust chief just shows that the above is inside him. The rule is by EU not by US so why bothering?
If there are chances to market their product, for sure there will be companies willing to invest on developing new idea. If MS bundle everything together, the chances that the end user willing to try new tools such as media player are very slim, ended that there are no prospect for third party developer to develop new idea since there are very small chances to sell it.
Yeah I was just letting off steam, pissed off about something that happened to me today…
I couldnt have said it better myself. The more I hear from anti-Microsoft zealots, the more I find myself supporting Microsoft. I was once a hard core Netscape user for a long time. Even when IE was included with Windows, I just avioded it. It wasnt until IE was improved over several versions that I finally made the switch. Now I wont even go near Netscape, no matter how good they may be for having to bitch to the government when they were being beat by a superior IE. I suppose if Real made a decent product as well, we would be hearing them bitch about Microsoft stealing marketshare from them either.
“If MS bundle everything together, the chances that the end user willing to try new tools such as media player are very slim, ended that there are no prospect for third party developer to develop new idea since there are very small chances to sell it.”
this is just wrong though. the problem is most software companies don’t advertise. You put some good commercials out and so forth and people will try it. But so many people look at running a software company as a low overhead business. The reality is you do need to spend money, you need to get the word out. This is how OSS business’s fail. They don’t do marketing. People will try stuff if you really throw it out there for them to take notice. And when i say market I mean tv commercials. Marketing on a tech site isn’t going to do anything for you, the people going to that site know who you are.
Got yourself a kick ass media product that you think can crush MS, buy a million dollar superbowl ad. Just one, and peopel will try it, or just try a smaller big event that cost less. The problems of competition dying is not because of MS, it’s because those companies don’t try. You can’t just have a website, or put your stuff on a shelf on a store. All money making companies know you have to advertise and advertise heavily, even if everyone knows your product. Everyone knows of Kraft Mac and Cheese, but they still advertise the snot out of it, because even though everyone knows of it, without commercials sales would drop. MS spends a ton on ads, and everyone knows there main products. The even advertise stuff normal consumers won’t buy, but it keeps them known, it keaps them in the market. MS is not the problem, it’s that other companies have crap business models. Like giving the product away for free and relying on ads on the company website. or giving support. Those models are doomed.
Car makers bundle stereo’s with cars, but aftermarket companies do very well selling replacements. Sure the stock one is removable (in most cars), but you don’t need to remove WMP to install another media player. New radios are more and more intergrated but that doesn’t stop people like me from going to a store and figuring out how to change it. But I also know i can because car stereo companys advertised that they can.
You should realize that not every companies got the resources as much as MS. Not every of them can afford the cost of advertising but it doesn’t mean that their product is not good and lack of innovation. What I mean here is that Real Player case is just the precedence, many others should be treated the same.
And not every user think the way you think. Most of the computer user just use whatever application available to them.
“We need a revolution.
Real penalties: IE should have been DROPPED and Microsoft Forced to ship Netscape.
– Microsoft should be forced to ship only REAL and QuickTime.”
What a sad, totalitarian, world you live in.
The money is relatively insignificant, but creating a level playing field between competitors is.
Microsoft has been found guilty by both courts for leveraging it’s OS and it’s software to stifle competition. Both decisions dodged the fact that Microsoft the Operating System company and Microsoft the Software Company exist in a grey as far as acceptable business ethics go.
Embrace, extend (and replace). Microsoft has done this with hundreds of competitors, has hundreds more ongoing today and has said it is willing continue to do so as for as long as it is allowed by law (although they have been convicted for the same violations 20x over). Consistently taking advantage of the years it takes to litigate these matters and consistently turning a disproportionate profit throughout the duration of the litigation.
The EU has it straight, it’s time for DOJ to ‘says what it means and mean what it says’. If it’s one way or the other that’s the environment we’ll exist in. Just make up your minds and quite being so two faced. Sorry.
I’m happy Linux user myself for a year now. Constant security problems in Windows XP made me switch. My two brothers still use Windows, 2000 and XP, but neither of them uses WMP. Nor IE. They don’t switch to Linux just because Windows has more games.
Point is, other OS’s need to be better than Windows. That is how monopoly is broken. I think giving massive fines to company just because they made product which public wants isn’t really from market economy. After all, Microsoft did get there where is it now by making superior product than her competitors. EU don’t need to punish Microsoft for it. Linux and other non-MS operation systems just need to get better, without help from goverments.
Time for a revolution.
I’m wondering if the gentleman who tried to get Go computing started would agree with you.
[ VDD ]
“I think giving massive fines to company just because they made product which public wants isn’t really from market economy. After all, Microsoft did get there where is it now by making superior product than her competitors.”
DR-DOS, Wordperfect, etc there’s more. Howver one can’t have a lopsided situation, and say that a balanced decision was made. For example machine comes with DOS at no apparent cost to you, but this superior DOS is available to you for a much greater sum, which you have to install yourself. Now which one will the majority pick? Tricks like the above and more is how MS got were it is, not superior products (remember the first consent decree?). True history will also record that some of it’s competitors stumbled, and made some poor decisions. However we will proably never know how much of a role that, and the aformentioned “shenanigans” played in their demise. Maybe more relevations will come out?
1) This is the EC’s juridiction – the ordered fine was against Microsoft’s European branches and the regulation is for within the EU only. While I disagree with the entire case, they have done nothing wrong. Except perhaps in the eyes of the EU system, which is based on an extremely complex system of treaties, accords and laws whom I have yet to find anyone that understands it (and a European constitution wouldn’t see the light of day anytime soon).
While initially I did see this as a anti-American action by the EC, I currently don’t see how it is. In Europe, there isn’t any European companies that is a monopoly in every country. Perhaps, if Microsoft was a London-based company as opposed to Redmond-based, the action would be more severe (international distribution vs. distribution within the EU).
2) EC showed it’s lack of competence in the case. How? Few days ago, they used Windows XP Embedded as proof that Windows can exist without WMP – the thing is that Windows XP Embedded is meant for the developer to develop a product running the applications it requires to fulfil its tasks. Personally, I wouldn’t consider using Windows XP, but this edition is meant for the likes of cash registers and automobile computers.
The thing with this edition is that you can’t install any ol’ Windows application – it is the developers of that certain Windows XP-using product that decides what software can be used on that computer.
3) The verdict itself isn’t all that descriptive. It doesn’t detail what is WMP and what isn’t. A liberal interpretation of the verdict can mean only the (relatively useless) front end, yet on the other spectrum it can mean anything that is used solely by WMP out of the box. This gives too much power to an unelected oligrachy of bureacrats within the EC to decide what goes in and what doesn’t.
This also affects Windows’ competitors. Regardless of whether it is competitive or not, the retail version of Mac OS X and Linux distributions would be affected.
4) I have no idea how this would bring more competition to the extremely young digital media sector. Firstly, this is only 30% of Windows’ market, and just say 1/3 of European customers end up buying the retail edition without WMP, it still means that ~80% of desktop users would still be getting WMP by default.
And even if WMP isn’t loaded with every copy of Windows, with 30% of the market, it isn’t going to whither away. Especially since that WMA/WMV has less royalty fees than MPEG4/AAC. This isn’t a winners-takes-all market, software distribution is only one facet of this market. Apple has the advantage in this market having iTMS leading the market. If they manage to maintain that leadership while branching out to video distribution, I don’t see how WMP loaded on every Windows installation is going to do anything about it.
People not using iTunes BTW are people that have no use for it (i.e. outside North America, not interested in buying music from iTMS, using a different MP3 player that isn’t compatible with iTMS tunes). In all those examples, you can see, it is Apple’s fault. Apple can open shop outside of North America, Apple can open iTunes to third-party hardware makers and certainly, Apple can improve on whatever flaws iTunes may have (especially the Windows version).
5) I also don’t see how consumers benefit from all this. It isn’t as if Real is better than WMP (hardly, using 10.0 – buggy and slow as hell). The same goes to QuickTime/iTunes (the Windows versions really need a lot of work). As said earlier, this isn’t a winners-takes-all market – unless both Apple and Real screws up, it is unlikely that WMP would reach monopoly status. But if they do screw up, it is their fault, not Microsoft’s.
In the proceedings, Real demostrated how people can still listen to music/watch video with RealOne when WMP is uninstalled (funnily, they didn’t show software like Premier, Kazaa, Grokster, Napster, etc. working without WMP installed). They showed this as proof that a media player isn’t needed in the OS. Using that benchmark, there’s a awful lot of things that should be stripped out of the OS because there are/were third party solutions, no?
A better solution is to force Microsoft by default on both OEM and retail editions to disable WMP (feature courtesy of DOJ, the people we are bashing right now) in Europe. In other words, people have to *choose* to use WMP to use it. And there isn’t any risk of a third-party app crashing and failing. Plus, 30% of the market would be affected, compared with a smaller percentage with this verdict.
In addition to that, allow European stores to allow distributing discs containing Real/Quicktime/WMP/etc. to customers buying Windows, and forbid Microsoft from retaliating.
But nontheless, as a libertarian, I would think that most government regulation would fall flat on their faces. The market is extremely young, and haven’t reached maturity. This includes the desktop market which is a little over 2 decades old, or the digital media market which is a little over a decade old. Perhaps a few decades from now, the market (regulation-less) would slowly move to a more balance and competitive market – who can tell? But one cannot expect a baby to start running before it can crawl.
What will happen in 90 days when MS doesn’t comply?
More fines, on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. Unless Microsoft appeals. These fines are incentive to get a company moving quickly rather than dragging their feat. Even though Microsoft have landfills filled with money, they are profit orientated and when they loose more money than make it, they take some action.
(I assume they won’t, it’s just like them to do that). Either: 1) it will get interesting, or 2) it’ll fade away, and everyone will be distracted by something else, and MS gets away with it (probably by buying them out).
The fines are automatic until EC’s bureacrats are happy with Microsoft’s actions. This is regardless of public participation. And a buyout of both Apple and Real is unlikely (SEC would never allow it; they are all US-based companies).
yes i agree the fine is meaningless. The US government has the attitude as the world’s police. Look what kind of result that gave. Now I have to worry about stuff like terrorism and loosing customers to other countries because the “US is evil” I still love it though, but I dont agree with the foreign relation stuff tho.
Interesting…
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14974
of course, it’s probably unrelated, as is usually the case with anything to do with M$ acccording to M$ layers
Does that means we go to war ?
So Microsoft has to let customers opt-out of their Media Player. Sounds fair to me. But instead of two seperate Windows versions, why not just make WMP an install option, and release an uninstall patch for current users? Makes more sense to me – would benefit customers and Microsoft.
You know, they’ll probably charge more for the WMP-free versions. That’ll be a good laugh.
-Bob
What, it could give MS competitors a advantige!!! Poor MS actualy might have to compete, wow. Come on D.O.J. this is only fair, god.
So Microsoft has to let customers opt-out of their Media Player.
Since the DOJ remedy a couple of years back, this have been available. Start> Control Panel> Add/Remove Programs> Set Program Access And Defaults.
But instead of two seperate Windows versions, why not just make WMP an install option, and release an uninstall patch for current users?
That “uninstall patch” is called SP1 for Windows XP. Download it. Sure, it hides WMP, but while you won’t get annoyed by WMP and get to use Real/Quicktime for your everyday media use, applications like Kazaa and Napster would still work. Amazing, isn’t it?
Bobthearch: You know, they’ll probably charge more for the WMP-free versions. That’ll be a good laugh.
Well, EC requires them to charge less for the WMP-free version, based on how much money they invested in WMP.
Brad: now imagine M$ released its first media player ever today. It’s descent, at least usable for Mr Joe.
M$ does _no_ advertizing for it. none. Now Mr Joe buy a new PC, with M$ Win installed AND the M$ Media player. Then M$ joe double clic on a media file, the media player pops up and do it’s job correctly: plays.
Tell me: why Mr Joe is going to see elsewhere a piece of soft to download or buy and install ?
In this case, M$ does 0 advertizing but is likely to take most of the market without effort.
It already happen on the Browser’s market. Open your eyes.
And worse, after M$ control the market, it start to change the standard his own way. So it’s very difficult for Mozilla or Opera devloppers to read Html pages build with M$ tools. I have a supplier, if I want to enter there web site with my Mozilla, it simply says that I can read it only with IE5 or above, I can download it, …
Isn’t that killing all competition ? It’s so obvious ! Why does it need to be explained !
P.S. sorry for my poor english
>
>”If MS bundle everything together, the chances that the end >user willing to try new tools such as media player are very >slim, ended that there are no prospect for third party >developer to develop new idea since there are very small >chances to sell it.”
>
>this is just wrong though. the problem is most software >companies don’t advertise. You put some good commercials >out and so forth and people will try it. But so many people >look at running a software company as a low overhead >business. The reality is you do need to spend money, you >need to get the word out. This is how OSS business’s fail. >They don’t do marketing. People will try stuff if you >really throw it out there for them to take notice. And when >i say market I mean tv commercials. Marketing on a tech >site isn’t going to do anything for you, the people going >to that site know who you are.>>
>
>Got yourself a kick ass media product that you think can >crush MS, buy a million dollar superbowl ad. Just one, and >peopel will try it, or just try a smaller big event that >cost less. The problems of competition dying is not because >of MS, it’s because those companies don’t try. You can’t >just have a website, or put your stuff on a shelf on a >store. All money making companies know you have to >advertise and advertise heavily, even if everyone knows >your product. Everyone knows of Kraft Mac and Cheese, but >they still advertise the snot out of it, because even >though everyone knows of it, without commercials sales >would drop. MS spends a ton on ads, and everyone knows >there main products. The even advertise stuff normal >consumers won’t buy, but it keeps them known, it keaps them >in the market. MS is not the problem, it’s that other >companies have crap business models. Like giving the >product away for free and relying on ads on the company >website. or giving support. Those models are doomed.>
>
>Car makers bundle stereo’s with cars, but aftermarket >companies do very well selling replacements. Sure the stock >one is removable (in most cars), but you don’t need to >remove WMP to install another media player. New radios are >more and more intergrated but that doesn’t stop people like >me from going to a store and figuring out how to change it. >But I also know i can because car stereo companys >advertised that they can.
Rajan, Thanks for the info – my ‘antique’ computer is still running Windows 98 and I’ve only used XP a few times. If there’s an uninstall option in XP, then I really don’t see the problem. Anyone who wants can uninstall WMP and install whatever replacement they want… I know that’s only part of the court case, but it’s an important part.
So according to the European court’s logic, Microsoft should also unbundle the GUI, Wordpad, scandisk, defrag, OutlookEpress, and anything else beyond the kernel. Having a bundled GUI is restrictive to third-party development and preventing success of third-party GUIs…
The court should have instead focused on illegally-restrictive license agreements with computer manufacturers.
-Bob
“If there’s an uninstall option in XP, then I really don’t see the problem”
I do. If already installed then the customer is not going to bother de-installing it. Just like they don’t get around to cancelling that book club membership that they got lured into. Or to mail in that mail-in rebate.
Let me tell you how it should be shopping for a new computer at your outlet.
First you go to the hardware dept and load up your cart with your pick of hardwares. In pieces, barebone or pre-assembled. But… none of it comes with any software pre-installed. Because it’s illegal.
Next you head over to the software dept. First you go to the aisle with the boxed OS’s where you make your pick. None of the OS’es bundle anything. Because it’s illegal.
Next you go to the aisle with the media player softwares and make your pick.
After that you go to the aisle with the cd-burning softwares and make your pick.
After that the officewares… etc…
Same scenario when you shop for a computer on the web.
You’ll discover that when you shop for the video card then you have a choice between ATI and NVidia among others. Or when you shop for a computer game then there is lots of choice. But when you shop for the OS then the only choices are XP and XP and both are MS.
Everybody has gotten so settled with how MS has arranged the shopping experience that no one questions it.
Hmmm…looks like I have an example to borrow.
As people have been pointing out, it’s the bootloader. Just ask Be.
Bobthearch: Rajan, Thanks for the info – my ‘antique’ computer is still running Windows 98 and I’ve only used XP a few times.
Windows 98 is more than 6 years old. If Microsoft is still supporting it, I hope they stop. And you could always run Windows 2000 (which I find a tad faster than Windows 98; using the same amount of RAM).
Bobthearch: If there’s an uninstall option in XP, then I really don’t see the problem. Anyone who wants can uninstall WMP and install whatever replacement they want…
You see, there isn’t an uninstall option. It is an hiding option. When you hide WMP, applications that depends on it would continue to work.
Claus: Everybody has gotten so settled with how MS has arranged the shopping experience that no one questions it.
Yeah, that pisses me off. When I walk into a McDonalds, and order a Value Meal – the nerve they have to give me their fries! How would they know that I wanted their fries instead of Burger King’s fries. But it’s alright, since it’s optional, right? But what really puts me over the edge is that on the burgers contains ketchup and mustard from McDonalds! This is anti-competitive, Burger King has no chance of giving me ketchup and mustard. Of course, unless I manually scrap off the ketchup and mustard from a McDonald…
Man, I really hate when capitalist companies tries to bundle in stuff that the customer may not want.
/sacarsm.
“”If there’s an uninstall option in XP, then I really don’t see the problem”
I do. If already installed then the customer is not going to bother de-installing it. Just like they don’t get around to cancelling that book club membership that they got lured into. Or to mail in that mail-in rebate. ”
Forcing customers to *be* bothered isn’t the proper role of government.
“Let me tell you how it should be shopping for a new computer at your outlet.
First you go to the hardware dept and load up your cart with your pick of hardwares. In pieces, barebone or pre-assembled. But… none of it comes with any software pre-installed. Because it’s illegal. ”
That would be a terrible country to live in.
“Everybody has gotten so settled with how MS has arranged the shopping experience that no one questions it. ”
This is how *markets* work. This isn’t something MS invented.
It’s sad…
…when talking about innovation, programs, protocols and new technologies we all talk as NETizens, not just european or africans or americans…
…when we talk about money, law and control it seems that a lot of people just cannot drop his flag and talk clearly…
…let me explain, a lot of US people told right and wrong things, same for EU ppl but some still talks like justice is an USA-only affair.
I know that it a bit harsh to say, and I know you’ll blame me as a EU crybaby but seriously, read what some says here and on the previous article then read what the DOJ says…
You can say that the EU commission is wrong (as I say that DMCA is a drawback for innovations) and no one will blame you but sometimes I feel like someone is arguing that we cannot judge an american company because it’s american…
It’s not fun…
Brad: now imagine M$ released its first media player ever today. It’s descent, at least usable for Mr Joe.
M$ does _no_ advertizing for it. none.
Which of course is inaccurate – when Microsoft released Windows XP, it advertise Windows XP-only WMP8 as a Windows XP feature. TV ads, site banners, newspaper ads, you name it. Microsoft placed WMP as a feature of Windows. Then when WMP 9 was released, there was a massive Internet advertising campaign trying to convince people to use WMP 9.
Now Mr Joe buy a new PC, with M$ Win installed AND the M$ Media player. Then M$ joe double clic on a media file, the media player pops up and do it’s job correctly: plays.
In my world, Mr Joes are divided into two groups – people who double click on a media file in, say, once a month, and people who listen to music and watch videos often on their computers. In the latter, I have yet to find anyone using WMP because they were lazy to download WinAMP, RealOne, etc. In fact, there’s a lot of people using WinAMP – your average Joes.
In this case, M$ does 0 advertizing but is likely to take most of the market without effort.
It already happen on the Browser’s market. Open your eyes.
Windows Media Player have been in Windows since Windows 3.1 (in different shapes and forms), and NetShow was integrated into WMP around the year 2000. Following your Internet browser example, one would expect WMP to have a dominant monopoly, no? They only have 30% of the market.
And with Internet browsers, if Microsoft never bundled IE into Windows, I have no doubt that it still be the monopoly today. During the time Microsoft crushed Netscape, IE was far more superior than Netscape. Loading pages were faster, there were mroe features to help browsing. Why would anyone want to use Netscape (other than inertia and political reasons)?
And on top of that, in the peak of competition with IE, Netscape decided to give up and opt for a 4 year rewrite of Netscape (which ended up with Mozilla). During this period, whatever there’s left of Netscape marketshare shrank considerably. In this instance, one would blame Netscape, no? Certainly, had not IE been bundled into Windows, there market share would be around 85% to 90% instead of 95+%.
Besides, at that time Opera was a pay-for browser with little more features than IE other than speed.
And worse, after M$ control the market, it start to change the standard his own way. So it’s very difficult for Mozilla or Opera devloppers to read Html pages build with M$ tools.
Funny, every page I made in Frontpage 2003 could be verified by W3C, and it loaded perfectly in Opera and Mozilla. Besides, if you turn back the clock to when Netscape was monopoly in the market, you would see similar problems. Its because most lazy webmasters are just that – lazy. Besides, show me proof where Frontpage is monopoly for the WYSIWYG web editor market.
I have a supplier, if I want to enter there web site with my Mozilla, it simply says that I can read it only with IE5 or above, I can download it, …
Use Opera, and you’d be blocked from more sites (i.e. my bank, which is okay with Mozilla). Does it mean that Mozilla is also crushing competition?
P.S. sorry for my poor english
You could do much better if you spelled Microsoft as either Microsoft or MS. M$ is lame and childish.
<<
Brad: now imagine M$ released its first media player ever today. It’s descent, at least usable for Mr Joe.
M$ does _no_ advertizing for it. none.
>
Which of course is inaccurate – when Microsoft released Windows XP, it advertise Windows XP-only WMP8 as a Windows XP feature. TV ads, site banners, newspaper ads, you name it. Microsoft placed WMP as a feature of Windows. Then when WMP 9 was released, there was a massive Internet advertising campaign trying to convince people to use WMP 9.
>
Hey I’ve wrote “now _imagine_”: that’s just a parameter for my demonstration: MS
is sure to get a big market share of any product as long as it’s just usable and delivered with the OS.
Btw, I’ve didn’t heard MS advertizing for its media player. Just I’ve heard advertizing for its OS with witch you can listen music, see movies, browse the web etc..
I can be wrong there, but again that’s not the point.
<<
Now Mr Joe buy a new PC, with M$ Win installed AND the M$ Media player. Then M$ joe double clic on a media file, the media player pops up and do it’s job correctly: plays.
>
In my world, Mr Joes are divided into two groups – people who double click on a media file in, say, once a month, and people who listen to music and watch videos often on their computers. In the latter, I have yet to find anyone using WMP because they were lazy to download WinAMP, RealOne, etc. In fact, there’s a lot of people using WinAMP – your average Joes.
>
The second Mr Joe is called Mr Geek. But:
1- he is a tiny market,
2- agree, if a soft delivered with the OS does not do the job, Mr geek is going to install an other one. But at the next version of the OS, as the app is likely to be correct (I myself considere MS product are descent ones), Mr Geek is likely to switch to the MS product. MS product doesn’t need to be better. It just need to be useable. That’s just what happens for the browser.
<
Windows Media Player have been in Windows since Windows 3.1 (in different shapes and forms), and NetShow was integrated into WMP around the year 2000. Following your Internet browser example, one would expect WMP to have a dominant monopoly, no? They only have 30% of the market.
>
.. yet. remember that the media market is quite new.
<
And with Internet browsers, if Microsoft never bundled IE into Windows, I have no doubt that it still be the monopoly today.
>
probably yes.. but being a monopoly on the desktop OS market, is one thing, already not very good, being a monopoly on the OS market, the browser market, the messenger market, the ..[don’t know the name in english].. Word market, Excel, little database (Access) etc.. is something else.
<
During the time Microsoft crushed Netscape, IE was far more superior than Netscape. Loading pages were faster, there were mroe features to help browsing. Why would anyone want to use Netscape (other than inertia and political reasons)?
>
Come on, at this time there was very few broadband. Even if what you said is true, the time to display the page was negligible compared with the time to download it.
But you are right. There is _no_ reason to use something else than IE except “politic” reason. Personnally I don’t want to take the risk MS reads my bookmarks, my addressbook, scan my disk and make a “profile” of me thanks to its browser. But most of the people don’t care.
<
And on top of that, in the peak of competition with IE, Netscape decided to give up and opt for a 4 year rewrite of Netscape (which ended up with Mozilla). During this period, whatever there’s left of Netscape marketshare shrank considerably. In this instance, one would blame Netscape, no? Certainly, had not IE been bundled into Windows, there market share would be around 85% to 90% instead of 95+%.
>
I really doubt of that.
Me I’ve always used Netscape/Mozilla: it does the job.
<<
And worse, after M$ control the market, it start to change the standard his own way. So it’s very difficult for Mozilla or Opera devloppers to read Html pages build with M$ tools.
>
Funny, every page I made in Frontpage 2003 could be verified by W3C, and it loaded perfectly in Opera and Mozilla.
>
why waste time checking it’s W3C compliant when 95% of the people use IE ? Web pages should be W3C compliant, that’s all.
<
Besides, if you turn back the clock to when Netscape was monopoly in the market, you would see similar problems.
Its because most lazy webmasters are just that – lazy.
>
At this time _all_ web pages were 100% W3C compliant. That was before MS tried to destroy the standard.
<<
I have a supplier, if I want to enter there web site with my Mozilla, it simply says that I can read it only with IE5 or above, I can download it, …
>
Use Opera, and you’d be blocked from more sites (i.e. my bank, which is okay with Mozilla). Does it mean that Mozilla is also crushing competition?
>
I don’t understand your point there. What I understand is that if you use MS tools to create a website, you are likely to have a website that does not work correctly with Mozilla and Opera but as IE is 95% of the market, doing some more test for the 5% of the market that remains can be an economic nonsense.
Btw I could see the above site perfectly with Mozilla .. IF I changed the browser identification (I don’t remember how but I don’t want to search now: I’m so lazy
)
BUT I don’t want to let Mozilla identify itself as IE as it would make the statistics for IE even worse.
<<
P.S. sorry for my poor english
>
You could do much better if you spelled Microsoft as either Microsoft or MS. M$ is lame and childish.
>
Didn’t know that but yes, MS is M$: a monopoly that have to be broken as any monopoly, as Standard Oil or AT&T’s monopoly were. That’s everybody’s interest, US, Europe, everybody. That’s politic. Yes free market _is_ politic. That’s not anti-american or anti bush or anti right or anything. Stop the paranoia and let’s not divide again on issues like this.
“Every Net citizen should be worried. We may be headed toward a world in which rich companies can shop around, repeatedly searching for a friendly court that is willing to ban content, ideas, products and choices with which they may disagree.”
-Michael Robertson
i’ve got an even simpler plan. MS should only be allowed to sell window and office as seperate line items for full retail price. They already price-fix with the retailers so they HAVE to sell the OS at MSRP [even old versions!]…and the price for everybody should be fixed for 3 years simply to hurt their sales!!!
That would force the OEMS to find other options rather than deal with all the upset customers paying $500 more for their computer! It would also settle the “bundling” issues as well. The problem all along is not MS bundling, but rather their “dumping” of products to gain market entry, killing off smaller somewhat profitable companies competing, then going on their way and rasising prices [or removing the features] again . The only real way to deal with MS [short of taking 150% of their on hand cash] is to eliminate ALL OEM deals of any kind for their products including any and all exclusiveity agreements or volume prices. MS should have to stamp a CD and manual for every single copy they sell…on their own dime and distribute it to the OEMS..the same for everyone. MS is a classic pyrimid scheme…OEMs do all the writing drivers, troubleshooting, setup and support and pay MS for the privilage…but you gotta have MS to be in business… Take away all ways MS “bends their own rules” simply to keep people from straying and people will be forced to use cheaper solutions to stay in business!
WOW we got preview now!!!!!! this is so cool!!!
“i’ve got an even simpler plan. MS should only be allowed to sell window and office as seperate line items for full retail price. They already price-fix with the retailers so they HAVE to sell the OS at MSRP [even old ”
Learn what “price fixing” is.
“versions!]…and the price for everybody should be fixed for 3 years simply to hurt their sales!!! ”
You do like forcing people to do things, don’t you? Robertson’s right. You can’t FORCE consumers to choose your way.
Also, note how MS has the “Student and Teacher” version of Office for only $129. Again, you have Unfair pricing because it’s not priced at “market” prices for their product. It’s deliberately priced with vague stipulations that the retailers are told to ignore. Of course MS still forces BUSINESSES to buy the super expensive version of the same thing under pain of lawsuit…for double [or more] the price… If that’s not monopolist pricing then what is it? It’s a classic example of how MS is “dumping” it’s $300 product to keep people from switch…while not allowing that product to be use in a free manner by ANY customer.
I think all student and academic pricing should be banned too based on principle. In a free market economy, nobody should be able to price a product simply based on how it will be used. All prices should be the most they can get away with and not loose customers. If a company has the ability to price the same item differently for different customers in the same geography then it’s not in a “free” market by the very definition of the term.
That retail price is what MS marketing has already choosen freely as their price point for what the product is worth to them. When sell site licenses or volume discounts that is predatory pricing given that the discounts are upto 75% of retail price!!! The alternative would be to pick some lower price and have MS sell to every one at that…but the 1-copy price MS has chosen for their Enterprise Office product is nearly $500 and the OS is $300…If they weren’t allowed to lower it for large companies, many people would be forced to switch and find competitors! The point of seperate line items is that the accounting for your local shop or Dell should be exactly the same price.. and shown seperately on the receipt. I’m not saying Dell couldn’t bundle it, but they’d have to show you purchased each copy seperately…and provide it as a seperate-strings free product same as off the shelf!
It’s an easy way to fix the MS monopoly problem without giving preference to any one other company. People would be more than free to continue to buy MS products…at fair retail pricing. It also solves all the problems of telling MS what they can and can’t bundle…personally I don’t care if they bundle the moon…as long as they allow competitors to play too…Remember that BeOS lost out because the OEMs were not allowed to display the BeOS at boot time and allow customers to choose…even when BE tried to GIVE IT AWAY!
The other very important part of my solution was to have everybody pay the same price for MS stuff…no special treatment at all! MS has shown time and again that they’re willing to try to put anything in a contract to “tie-in” OEMS…it’s time to cut those ties, even if it hurts some collaborators like Dell. Non preferenial pricing is a key component. After all MS is a monopoly…that’s been proven in court. We could appoint various governmet boards and officers to watch all the little details of the DOJ agreement about what API needs to be open and which icons can be on the desktop and watch as MS makes a mockry of the legal process or do something very simple and say that with MS monopoly status they should have to sell to everybody the same. It’s the simplest plan that does the minimum of Government intervention and the maximum damage to MS marketshare!!!
“That retail price is what MS marketing has already choosen freely as their price point for what the product”
No, the retail price is what MS has decided *one* license costs. Pretty much *anything* is cheaper *wholesale*.
“s worth to them. When sell site licenses or volume discounts that is predatory pricing given that the discounts are upto 75% of retail price!!! The alternative would be to pick some lower price and have”
No, that’s not the way business works.
The problem here, for you, is that the lion’s share of the consumers do NOT want things they way you do. You obviously have no clue how business works. For one thing, you think the goal everyone has is to *damage* MS marketshare. Now, the right way to do that is to make a better product. The wrong way is to follow your silly and punitive marketing theories.
“Remember that BeOS lost out because the OEMs were not allowed to display the BeOS at boot time and allow customers to choose…even when BE tried to GIVE IT AWAY!”
BE lost for its own reasons – no apps and no mindshare.
Uh, hello Russian Guy.
Michael Robertson wasn’t even talking about the Sun affair with that quote, and even if you thought he was, I fail to see how you can think that would be supportive of MS.
That quote referred to Microsoft hopping from American court to European court to European court, trying to get one that would allow them to stop the sale of (in effect ban) Lindows because of its name.
Get it right.
Also, note how MS has the “Student and Teacher” version of Office for only $129. Again, you have Unfair pricing because it’s not priced at “market” prices for their product. It’s deliberately priced with vague stipulations that the retailers are told to ignore.
I’ve got a suggestion for you. Grab your car keys, get up from that chair, drive to the nearest bookstore, and take up a random book about marketing before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Want to know what I mean? Sun offers StarOffice free to Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesian and Indian students. Does it mean they are overcharging for StarOffice? Does it mean that Sun does not need to charge $75 for each copy of StarOffice? My God, those evil bastards, how dare they act monopolisticly. </sacarsm> Why do they give it away for free? Why does companies like Autodesk, Adobe, etc. have education discount?
Remember when you’re a student, struggling to pay tuition fees (unless you live in a nanny state, then your parents would be struggling to pay taxes). How many students do you think would pay $500 for Office, $1000 for AutoCAD, etc.? Little, right? What would stop them from using free/cheaper competitors? Nothing, right? That’s precisely the reason.
If just say every college student uses OpenOffice.org over Office or StarOffice or Word Perfect Office, uses FreeCAD over AutoCAD, uses GIMP over Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro and the likes, the market for these commercial software would shrink. If just say after coming out of college, I want to open my own design house – why should I use Photoshop when throughout my schooling and college life, I’ve been using GIMP?
Besides, Microsoft have site licensing plans for medium to large corporations, where the cost per license of Office is much lower than retail.
I think all student and academic pricing should be banned too based on principle. In a free market economy, nobody should be able to price a product simply based on how it will be used.
Then accurately, such a law should also ban free samples. And trial services. Stuff like that. Educational pricing is to get students (and teachers/lecturers/professors that teaches/lectures those students) hooked on a certain software. Sun realizes that and is spending a lot of money getting educational institutes in emerging markets to use StarOffice (rather ingenious, actually). Microsoft realized that for quite some time. It’s a marketing strategy, Microsoft isn’t doing this as community service.
When sell site licenses or volume discounts that is predatory pricing given that the discounts are upto 75% of retail price!!! The alternative would be to pick some lower price and have MS sell to every one at that…but the 1-copy price MS has chosen for their Enterprise Office product is nearly $500 and the OS is $300..[…]
And while in that bookstore, get some books on basic economics too. In many industries, the price drops when the volume is larger. How else could Wal-Mart get everything much cheaper than a mom-and-pop sundry shop? They buy stuff in huge bulks, and thus at a lower price. What you’re suggesting is to change the very essence of modern economics, where producers can’t count on selling in larger bulk because they are forbidden to give discounts.
I’ve noticed several times you using sarcasm. However what you need to keep in mind that as far as American laws are concerned, there are things that non-monopolies can do, that the same, aren’t allowed monopolies. Now right or wrong, Microsoft has already been judged to be a Monopoly, and that fact should be taken into account whenever one is discussing marketing (or any other aspect of business for that matter).
Hey I’ve wrote “now _imagine_”: that’s just a parameter for my demonstration: MS
is sure to get a big market share of any product as long as it’s just usable and delivered with the OS.
That’s not necessarily true. Take WordPad for example – how much market share does it have? Or Windows Movie Maker – why isn’t the likes of Adobe and Sony not suing? Isn’t WordPad usable? Isn’t Movie Maker usable? How is it that AIM maintain their market share after so long even though Windows Messenger is in the OS? Why had millions of Windows users download MSN Messenger even though Windows Messenger is “just usable and delivered with the OS”?
Btw, I’ve didn’t heard MS advertizing for its media player. Just I’ve heard advertizing for its OS with witch you can listen music, see movies, browse the web etc..
What do you in Windows by default when you listen movies and watch movies? Internet Explorer? Solitaire? That’s indirect advertising for you; Microsoft was advertising WMP8 as a Windows feature. They were using WMP8 to sell Windows XP.
I can be wrong there, but again that’s not the point.
If you’re wrong in your example, doesn’t that break your point? Especially when you fail to come up with new evidence?
The second Mr Joe is called Mr Geek.
Then I must presume that most of my family are geeks. (Which I would hardly call them that, considering their lack of computer knowlegde)
2- agree, if a soft delivered with the OS does not do the job, Mr geek is going to install an other one. But at the next version of the OS, as the app is likely to be correct (I myself considere MS product are descent ones), Mr Geek is likely to switch to the MS product. MS product doesn’t need to be better. It just need to be useable. That’s just what happens for the browser.
On the first part, when Windows gain market share in the browser market – their browser was more than descent. It was a great browser – there wasn’t any compared with it. Opera was expensive and lack many features, Netscape was slow, bloated and crafty, not to mention woefully out of date. Mosaic wasn’t commercial; and considering both Netscape and IE are based on Mosaic, I doubt it could compete very well. And other browsers were either obscure, text-based or only available on a non-Windows platform.
Now, why IE maintains its lead? Is it because people are too lazy to go out and try another browser? Hardly. People don’t know the existance of other browsers. Mozilla, being a community, non-profit project, doesn’t advertise. Opera is a small Norwegian company trying to make ends meet. And AOL Time Warner never actually bothered to attempt a advertising campaign for Netscape. In fact, one could say they are advertising IE indirectly with the distribution of AOL CDs using Internet Explorer.
So is it Microsoft’s fault their chief commercial competitor is using their browser, the second in line is a obscure Scandinavian company, and their biggest threat is a (rather fragmented, I must say) open source project with no marketing and advertising resources?
probably yes.. but being a monopoly on the desktop OS market, is one thing, already not very good, being a monopoly on the OS market, the browser market, the messenger market, the ..[don’t know the name in english].. Word market, Excel, little database (Access) etc.. is something else.
Besides the point. You said Microsoft gained the monopoly via Windows, I beg to differ, and you couldn’t back it up. BTW, Microsoft isn’t even close to getting the instant messaging monopoly. If anything, the market is dominated by a rather, according to your logic, monopolistic AOL, and the rest of the market is rather split by Microsoft and Yahoo. Neither three is close to gaining a legal monopoly (>70%)
And Word, Excel, Access, and the rest of Office isn’t bundled into Windows. It is a separate division in Microsoft that in facts makes more money than Windows. Office does not ride on Windows’ market share – in fact, many would say otherwise. Plus, Office is available (well, mostly) on the Mac platform and if the rumours are true (and for Microsoft’s sack, I hope they are), a Linux version may be well on the way too.
Come on, at this time there was very few broadband. Even if what you said is true, the time to display the page was negligible compared with the time to download it.
Remember, IE’s early rise to dominance didn’t happen via Windows, rather through massive CD distributions (I still have a IE 3.0 CD lying around somewhere). When Microsoft first bundled IE in Windows 95b, most Windows users were not using that edition, or Windows 95 for that matter. It would take some 3-4 years before Windows+IE becomes more prevalent than Windows without IE.
As for downloads, I don’t remember downloading any browser, whether IE or Netscape, back then. All my browsers, except for minor updates, came via CDs. Netscape being bought off by the world’s then biggest ISP by far should have given it a lot of leverage in terms of distribution. A lot of leverage not used. AOL then and now uses IE for their software. Back then, they reasoned that Netscape wasn’t technically ready and they would wait for the rewrite (Mozilla) to finish, now after almost two years since the rewrite’s done, AOL’s software still uses IE.
Personnally I don’t want to take the risk MS reads my bookmarks, my addressbook, scan my disk and make a “profile” of me thanks to its browser.
Considering it is Netscape 7.x, not IE, that has spyware….
I really doubt of that.
Me I’ve always used Netscape/Mozilla: it does the job.
Yes, I have used Netscape too for many years up to Netscape 6.0, when I started looking for altenatives. But that’s because Netscape was the only usable browser for Linux, so it made little sense to use two very different browsers on Linux and Windows. However, even with Netscape installed on my Windows installation, *none* of my family members wanted to use Netscape.
Why should they? It is slower, buggy, and doesn’t have many of the features IE have.
why waste time checking it’s W3C compliant when 95% of the people use IE ? Web pages should be W3C compliant, that’s all.
Uhm, your point? I just said that I have yet to make a page in Front page that isn’t verifiable with W3C.
I don’t understand your point there. What I understand is that if you use MS tools to create a website, you are likely to have a website that does not work correctly with Mozilla and Opera but as IE is 95% of the market, doing some more test for the 5% of the market that remains can be an economic nonsense.
Neither do I understand your point. When you mention that Microsoft tools makes pages incompatible with other browsers, I naturally assume you meant FrontPage. The only other tool Microsoft provides solely for making webpages is ASP.NET, yet again I don’t see your point. If web designers don’t make their websites compatible with altenative browsers, it is chiefly their fault. They certainly can’t blame Microsoft’s tools.
I don’t know many professional sites that uses a WYSIWYG editor to build their entire websites. I personally use Frontpage initially to design my PHP+MySQL site, but overall, I would say I have used Notepad more than Frontpage.
Btw I could see the above site perfectly with Mozilla .. IF I changed the browser identification (I don’t remember how but I don’t want to search now: I’m so lazy
)
Again, web designer’s fault. There isn’t some mysterious code Microsoft forced onto web desigers that prevents web pages loading properly in other browsers. For example, Yahoo doesn’t render properly in Opera when Opera is identified as Opera, however as Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Mozilla, it works (almost) perfectly. However, Yahoo doesn’t use Windows for its server, ASP.NET for its scripting, and I venture a bet that they don’t also use Frontpage for designing their site.
So I blame Yahoo solely for this. Not Microsoft.
Didn’t know that but yes, MS is M$: a monopoly that have to be broken as any monopoly, as Standard Oil or AT&T’s monopoly were.
You don’t really understand antitrust legislation, don’t you? (BTW, Ma Bell is tame in comparison with Baby Bells, IMHO, and the regulation carried out under the courts verdict is sucking the life out of the last mile business).
That’s everybody’s interest, US, Europe, everybody.
Except thousands of employees of Microsoft, and of Microsoft’s partners, and of companies that depend on Microsoft, who would loose their jobs only because Microsoft lacks competent competitors.
That’s not anti-american or anti bush or anti right or anything. Stop the paranoia and let’s not divide again on issues like this.
No, it isn’t anti-America. Nor anti-Bush (where did Bush get into this picture?). But it is anti-capitalism. The courts (and netizens) don’t seem to understand the market Microsoft is in haven’t matured yet. The desktop market is barely 2 decades old, the consumer Internet market, digital media, instant messaging, etc. are even younger. In time, without judiciary intervention, the market would mature and Microsoft’s competitors would get stronger and stronger. While that happens, consumers benefits. But placing barriers isn’t going to help the market, in fact it would probably harm the market in the long term (if the telecommunications market is any indicator).
BR, I never said that the courts didn’t find Microsoft guilty of leveraging its monopoly. I never said Microsoft isn’t guilty under American (and European) law. I just disagree with the way Microsoft is being treated, I disagree with American and European law. Plus, I disagree with many of the measures proposed against Microsoft by fellow readers, as well as disagreeing with them on the reasons why such measures must be taken.
And I inherited my sacarsm from my parents, which inherited it from their parents and so on and so fort. I do admit I have to tone down my sacarsm – it doesn’t really do well in this medium.
The point I was getting across is that MS being a monopoly alters some of your “marketing” examples. So not only do people have to pick up a marketing book, but one on law as well (Lord knows, the Tyco, Wordcom, Enron’s could use one).
Now as far as the way MS is being treated. Exactly what would you suggest for a company that not only violated the rules in the past, but it appears that it’s still up to it’s tricks?
>Michael Robertson wasn’t even talking about the Sun affair with that quote,
Michael Robetson made a simle, clear and powerful statement about shameless state of American business where companies compete not on merits but on litigations.
I am sure Michael ment to be general, not just asking special treatment for his pet project. I have much more respect to Michael than you do, it seems.
>I fail to see how you can think that would be supportive of MS.
Let me repeat Michael:
“We may be headed toward a world in which rich companies can shop around, repeatedly searching for a friendly court that is willing to ban content, ideas, products and choices with which they may disagree.”
That quote also applies to rich American companies (Sun, Real) trying to get even with another rich American company (Microsoft).
Unless, of course, “Microsoft must die.”
>Get it right.
I think I got it: Michael does not like to see rich companies shopping around the world for a friendly courts to hurt competitors. He would rather see companies compete on merits.
He sounds very much like statement from DOJ: “The European Commission’s order for Microsoft Corp. to ship a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player could … help Microsoft’s rivals instead of promoting fair competition”
No wonder they both sound alike: they say the truth.
I think you should get it right.
The point I was getting across is that MS being a monopoly alters some of your “marketing” examples. So not only do people have to pick up a marketing book, but one on law as well (Lord knows, the Tyco, Wordcom, Enron’s could use one).
The point I was getting across is that the basic principles of marketing applies even though you’re competing with a monopoly. Especially when it comes to advertising a product. Unless Microsoft have bought-off all major advertising venues (newspapers, TV stations, cable operators, heck, even the United States Postal Office), I don’t see how advertising is impossible.
Now, to prove my point: iTunes. iTMS recorded a rather remarkable (and shall I say, suprising) record of sales since its inception. And it is rather hard to believe that such a small amount of Mac users are able to buy that much of music. So in other words, Apple’s advertising of iTunes on TV, newspapers, magazines, etc. worked because it got a significant number of Windows users downloading iTunes for Windows, and using it on top of that.
Advertising, especially smart advertising, goes a long way.
Now as far as the way MS is being treated. Exactly what would you suggest for a company that not only violated the rules in the past, but it appears that it’s still up to it’s tricks?
You see, I disagree with a significant portion of the rules in the first place (being a libertarian/objectivist and all). What do I suggest? Let it be. The courts got involve with Ma Bell even though its market was relatively young, without giving a chance for the market to mature naturally. Instead it splitted it up into regional Baby Bells that are even more vicious than its predecessor, and certainly little hope for non-Bell competitors entering the lucrative last mile business.
Besides, I’m convinced that Windows wouldn’t retain its market share for you, even though if the courts ignore it. Why? One word: Linux. It already have 3% of the global market share (which is recorded only in sales) and is rapidly expanding in terms of market size. The chief reasons being diversity (for security reasons; think viruses) and cost (long term, Linux is cheaper than Windows is many different areas in the low-end)
However, just say the Jackson did get his way and manage to split Microsoft into two companies. Linux would have definately suffered because judiciary, barriers are placed on the new company carrying Windows to diversify and thus they have to put all their effort into maintaining their market share to their sole cash cow.
In other words: Linux chances of making it big is reduced by a considerable amount.
Kollar-Kotelly remedy wasn’t all that better either – it forced Microsoft to be more competitive when it came to OEMs. By forcing Microsoft to be more flexible to OEMs, it reduced whatever there’s left of Linux competitive egde in that market at that time. Plus, Linux’s flexiblity and open nature towards ISVs reduced as an advantage when Microsoft was forced to disclose fully their APIs.
Besides, I’m convinced that Windows wouldn’t retain its market share for you, even though if the courts ignore it.
I have no idea what went on in my head. Replace “you” with “long” (heck, they aren’t even words on a related subject)
And to clarify my examples above, it [both Jackson’s ruling and Kollar-Kottelly’s remedy] does help competition in one area, but cripples competition in another area. With Jackson’s ruling, third-party developers no longer have to fear about other Microsoft software finding their way into Windows, while OS competitors would start having tougher competition from Windows, for example.
<
That’s not necessarily true. Take WordPad for example – how much market share does it have? Or Windows Movie Maker – why isn’t the likes of Adobe and Sony not suing? Isn’t WordPad usable? Isn’t Movie Maker usable?
>
WordPad ? what’s the market of WordPad ? there is no market for Wordpad.
As long as movie recording or movie manipulation was reserved for “geeks” (ok: half geeks) they used something else, better and more suitable. Now that it’s becoming a “Mr Joe” activity, be sure Movie Maker is going to take most of the market. Be sure that in LongHorn, Movie Maker or anything else that may replace it, is going to be good enough to match Adobe or Sony’s product. Too bad for them, they have no chance.
<<
Btw, I’ve didn’t heard MS advertizing for its media player. Just I’ve heard advertizing for its OS with witch you can listen music, see movies, browse the web etc..
>
What do you in Windows by default when you listen movies and watch movies? Internet Explorer? Solitaire? That’s indirect advertising for you; Microsoft was advertising WMP8 as a Windows feature. They were using WMP8 to sell Windows XP.
>
Thank you, at last you give me a point: MS is using its monopoly in the OS to get other market. Now what is _not_ a Windows feature ? Everything Mr Joe can need running in his computer can be a Windows feature. If there is a competitor, then the feature comes for free else it’s sold separatly.
<<
I can be wrong there, but again that’s not the point.
>
If you’re wrong in your example, doesn’t that break your point? Especially when you fail to come up with new evidence?
>
He he: I wasn’t wrong it seems: MS didn’t do any specific advertizing for its Media player. You cut my sentence and then pretend you didn’t understand: not fair.
<<
The second Mr Joe is called Mr Geek.
>
Then I must presume that most of my family are geeks. (Which I would hardly call them that, considering their lack of computer knowlegde)
>
For me they are half-geeks. I know very well Mr Joe average knowledge. No offense for Mr Joe but it’s very poor.
I tell you, a lot of them don’t even know how to edit a text file.
Even for more “advanced” users, Installing a soft is already a big job. I would’nt be surprised if they are more than 50% of pc users.
So why will they pay and install something if it’s already there, even if it’s not the best software ?
<
On the first part, when Windows gain market share in the browser market….
>
I stand with my point and when I said: ”
Come on, at this time there was very few broadband. Even if what you said is true, the time to display the page was negligible compared with the time to download it.
”
It seems clear to me that I mean the time for the browser to download the page before displaying it.
<
Remember, IE’s early rise to dominance didn’t happen via Windows, rather through massive CD distributions (I still have a IE 3.0 CD lying around somewhere). When Microsoft first bundled IE in Windows 95b, most Windows users were not using that edition, or Windows 95 for that matter. It would take some 3-4 years before Windows+IE becomes more prevalent than Windows without IE.
>
wrong. the CD distributions included IE because that was what users already used.
<..However, even with Netscape installed on my Windows installation, *none* of my family members wanted to use Netscape.>
I see. Me, when I tried do convince my familly to switch to Mozilla, and Mozilla messenger, *none* wanted too. Now Mozilla is very good. Obviously as good as IE. And Mozilla messenger address book is less likely to be used by virus to spread than Outlook’s one. But none wanted. Just because the “Previous” button does not look exatly the same and is not exatly at the same place.
People is like that: when it’s not really broken, they don’t fix it.
<
…The only other tool Microsoft provides solely for making webpages is ASP.NET…
>
That’s probably it.
<
If web designers don’t make their websites compatible with altenative browsers, it is chiefly their fault. They certainly can’t blame Microsoft’s tools.
>
Certainly yes. Is a company going to release a web design tool that is “best viewed with Opera” or display correctly only with Opera ? no. Only MS can create a new standard or change current standard. Guess why: because it’s a monopoly.
And that gives them a huge advantage over any competitor
<
You don’t really understand antitrust legislation, don’t you?
>
what make you think that ? the fact that you understand it very well ?
<…
But it is anti-capitalism. …
>
depend on your definition of capitalism.
If you mean free market, that’s a very capitalist decision: that’s capitalism regulator’s job to break monopolies when they kill any competition.
If by capitalism you mean let monopolistic company kill any competitors, then you are right but then capitalism is anti-republican. USA is a Republic isn’t it ?
<
…
In time, without judiciary intervention, the market would mature and Microsoft’s competitors would get stronger and stronger. While that happens, consumers benefits.
>
EU don’t think so. It was asked by American companies to study the case, it studied the case for five years, found enough evidences and finally don’t agree with you: it’s EU’s right to think so. No European company will benefit of its decision: only American one.
P.S: forgive me again for my bad english, I did my best..