Aiming to portray itself as the victim of overreaching regulators, Microsoft on Wednesday released a position paper insisting that the European Union’s antitrust sanctions amount to “new law” that could hurt others in the technology industry. Elsewhere, the next Microsoft Tablet PC software renamed to Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 from the code-name Lonestar.
Microsoft Commentary Slams EU Ruling
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Personally, I think it was kinda dumb for the EU to pick on WMP, when (IMHO) it is IE that is the real problem, at least as far as tie-in goes. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass if they bundle WMP in or not, since you usually need all 3 codecs (WMP/Real/Quicktime) anyway. But I’d love to see Windows without IE.
> to Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005
Hmmm…oh…nope! Still don’t want to buy it or use it:) You know, there are just some things that Bill Gates just can’t let go of. Tablets and Interactive Television. He’s burned billions on this, and his ROI is nothing.
Well, it doesn’t really matter. They had to go after something, they took WMP, they can go after IE later if necessary.
The interesting thing about the ruling is not the fine. It’s that MS has to open some of it’s protocolls. That’s what causes the lock-in. It’s not important if they bundle IE, as long as everyone can use VBScript or JScript in any browser, users get the opportunity to choose their browser.
Same goes for SMB, Office file formats, WMA/WMV etc….
Personally, I think the people who would like to see the BIG dog companies come undone, are praying to the wrong God.
Many of these BIG dog companies are also the same ones keeping FOSS out of the fire.
Consider for a second “some” of what they are defending themselves against works both ways. Be glad in someways they have the cash to defend themselves.
Personally, I think the people who would like to see the BIG dog companies come undone, are praying to the wrong God.
Many of these BIG dog companies are also the same ones keeping FOSS out of the fire.
Consider for a second “some” of what they are defending themselves against works both ways. Be glad in someways they have the cash to defend themselves.
Perhaps, perhaps. But one thing’s for sure, Microsoft isn’t one of those “BIG dog” companies that’s keeping FOSS out of the fire. If anything, they are adding more logs, and maybe even some gasoline!
Sick ’em boys! 😉
(Who let the dogs out?)
Dark Helmet: Before you die there is something you should know about us, Lone Star.
Lone Starr: What?
Dark Helmet: I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist….
the eu without so much as a scratch. no fine or much reduced and they will not have to modify code in any significant way.
by the time it is resolved the landscape will have changed radically.
tablet pcs are a specialty item and for those where the tool fits love it. certain industrys are falling in love with them and sales momentum is picking up. read some hard facts in technology circles like CRN or Information Week and you would know that. It isn’t designed as a laptop replacement.
“Monopoly” is a word used by the state to get their hands as deep into the pockets of a successful enterprise as possible.
I find it *sick* that anyone would advocate the gouging of Microsoft (or any other company for that matter) by the state (the state being any government).
The EU, being an immense, overly bloated buearucratic monster, just like the US Govt’, is just trying to wet their beaks as well.
Do you honestly think the EU government is worried about consumers in Europe as much as they are taking a swing and collecting some cash from MS?
I think the EU ruling was rediculous, and I want w/e of that money that was formerly mine back into my country. I’m very much anti-M$, but I don’t see illegal/immoral lawsuits as a way to fix the problem. They are actually suing them on the basis of the product being complete? How is that unfair? Shouldn’t they sue Novell since Suse is ACTUALLY COMPLETE?
Yes but name a useful product that only runs on SUSE and not Mandrake or RedHat
The interesting thing about the ruling is not the fine. It’s that MS has to open some of it’s protocolls. That’s what causes the lock-in. It’s not important if they bundle IE, as long as everyone can use VBScript or JScript in any browser, users get the opportunity to choose their browser.
Same goes for SMB, Office file formats, WMA/WMV etc….
You’re right, but users tend to choose the easiest option. If a browser is bundled, they’ll use it. Then again, with open formats, competitors could actually compete… so kudos to you for spotting the *real* problem. Didn’t saw many people with that suggestion. I’m tired of people saying “Microsoft should play with different rules because they’re a monopoly” and crap like this. If the competition have the chance to compete and can’t keep up, it’s their goddamn problem. I hate people that are always cheering for the weaks.
SuSE doesn’t include software only made by Novell so the same rules don’t apply.
The EU did not target IE for several reasons. One reason was that there were no complaints by anyone to the EU about IE. Second, IE is a hard program to attack because Microsoft has connected it more and more into the OS. Of course it’s technically no problem to design an API that can make Windows talk to any browser, but hey, this is Microsoft.
In contrast, Windows Media Player is much more an addon. You can remove the player, and everything keeps working, except the media player and it’s other appearance s in webbrowsers. You can remove it’s codecs, you lose WMA etc. but you can then play DivX with WMP if you install it.
The only piece which is not easlily removable is Directshow, but that is part of DirectX, not WMP. Well, it can be removed, but a lot more players besides WMP use it and removal of Directshow might have similar effects as removing Directdraw or something. (Realplayer does not use Directshow though.)
But in general WMP is simply an addon and Microsoft will have no technical difficulties complying with the order. The problem for Microsoft is, it sets a legal precedent. If they loose, webbrowser manufacturers or competitors with other components such as Windows Messenger (and don’t tell me THAT is an irremovable part of teh OS) can try to enforce removal based on existing jurisdiction.
Microsoft will have no other choice and changing its behaviour with respect to bundling. And that’s what the EU tries to achieve with it’s ruling. They are not trying to help Real, but are fixing conditions to allow a free market.
Hi
“I’m tired of people saying “Microsoft should play with different rules because they’re a monopoly” and crap like this”
Like it or not. thats the legal position. Microsoft cannot use its leverage in desktop os market to push its browser and media player. ever wondered why IE holds the market share to superior alternatives like firefox and opera?
Only if the penalty is delayed until after the ruling. The EU can oppose that, because delaying it might put more competitors out of business. If the EU can prove urgence, Microsoft might have a hard day.
ever wondered why IE holds the market share to superior alternatives like firefox and opera?
Firefox: is a beta, and has only recently been released
Opera: has ads, or costs money, both of which are unpopular, and is also very cluttered in its default configuration
It is even law. If you have a dominant position, you are required to obey the special rules of engagements in anti-trust law. Antitrust laws in Europe were sharpened during the ’90s to stop abuse of national telecom monopolies behave well and as a result the competition regulators are in an excellent position to enforce remedies.
Firefox: is a beta, and has only recently been released
Opera: has ads, or costs money, both of which are unpopular, and is also very cluttered in its default configuration
So?
The question is wether IE has an unfair advantage. Since Microsoft does not need to use ads to make money, and Opera does have to, I think it makes a lot of sense to say IE has unfair advantage.
Let’s see… Because only few people want to pay for a browser and because AOL let Netscape down? Firefox is technically still beta software, anyway. Just take a look at their website and you’ll see “Technology Preview”.
If Microsoft open their specs, let the competition use their de facto standards and stop making shady/illegal deals with OEMs that discriminate those putting alternatives on their computers, they wouldn’t need to do this. You don’t attack the source of the problem by crippling them that way. For example, it won’t force Real to actually develop a good player that doesn’t want to own your whole computer.
It’s not because it’s legal that it makes sense. The DMCA is something legal, after all. Software patents might, too.
Correct. The EU is only trying to fix conditions for a free market. If Real plays suicide, it’s their problem.
You can argue about how fair a law is, that is everyones personal opinion of course. Experiences with anti-trust law are that they improve the situation but are in general not able to turn the tide.
I understand your point but I don’t think it’s the best way to allow a free market.
Let’s take the example of Opera Software. So yeah, they have difficulty to compete against IE. The reality is that Opera don’t have to develop their browser for MS Windows. If the EC and the DoJ (in my dreams, I know) is forcing Microsoft to open their specs, many competitors (including but not limited to Linux, the BSDs, other less-known like SkyOS) could easily develop attracting alternatives. Opera Software could develop for these platforms instead. With the Microsoft’s Licencing 6.0 scheme, I’m sure many companies are just waiting for alternatives. That’s why I’m promoting that instead of unbundling stuff.
The current law is a bit ludicrous to me as it’s like asking a car manufacturer to use his competitor’s brakes or engines. If your competition can’t keep up and you play fair, what is the problem? In this case, Microsoft don’t play that fair, but if we attack the core of the problem (closed specs, unfair deals with OEMs providing alternatives), I’m pretty sure the competition could stand up against them.
I can’t believe it, it’s the same old talk again…
(Not quoting anyone special…)
“Hey, but Linux and MacOS come with a media player as well, why not sue them?”
Hello McFly, someone home? Neither Linux nor MacOS have a 90% market share in desktop operating systems, while Microsoft has been proven to be a monopoly by US court before!
“Why WMP and not IE?”
It’s too late to make them unbundle the IE now, since Microsoft embedded it so deep in the system already, and the harmful effect has been done already. IE should have been stoped a long time ago, but now it’s too late.
Actually I think the browser market is at the process of recovering right now, because more and more people start to notice that IE has more holes than a swiss cheese, and also lacks lots of features compared to other browsers, as it hasn’t been updated by Microsoft for a very long time.
BTW, AOL got 750 million Dollars from Microsoft because of the Netscape case, so those people who think that the 497 million Euros that Microsoft shall pay to the EU is too much should think again.
As for the WMP, Microsoft want to use their over 90% share of the desktop market to break into the media market. As soon as they would have managed that, they’d kill all other formats, remove support for alternative formats from the WMP, and everyone without a WMP would be screwed.
Do you really want that to happen (not to mention TV with MS technology, yes they are looking into that too)?
And that is why WMP has to be at least slowed down now (remember the EU don’t want Microsoft to remove the WMP completely, just to provide an alternative version without the WMP, so customers have a choice; of course that’s a problem for Microsoft, because they like to make the choices for their customers, if they like it or not).
“The EU just want some money from big firms!”
Do you know how much money Microsoft makes, and how much tax they pay? I don’t have any figures, but I believe I read that Microsoft pay almost no taxes, at least compared to what they earn!
Talking about money, what about the money grabbing licence system from Microsoft?
BTW, the EU didn’t just pick on Microsoft because they wanted money, they started investigations because of complaints regarding uncompetative business practices uttered by US firms (yes, that’s right, US firms, not EU ones)!
One of that firms was Sun, which now has been silenced by Microsoft with a payment of 2 billion Dollars.
Who thinks that Microsoft is a nice firm that is unlawfully sentenced by the evil EU should think again!
But I guess a lot of people still believe the MS propaganda and let MS make the thinking for them, but don’t come screaming when it’s too late!
I agree 100% with the first part of your post but I would propose a different analogy to the second part of your story. Let’s talk about car radio’s.
Some car manufacturers ship theirs cars with radios that are fixed into the car. The user cannot easily remove the radio, but has advantage that the built-in radio shares the display with the GPS-positioning system etc.
This is no problem, because the market is free and each car manufacturer can make it’s own deal with an electronics manufacturer. There will still be car manufacturers not interrested in this, so the consumer can buy a car without radio and install a radio to his wishes.
Now, suppose there would be a car manufacturer, say Toyocedes, which has 95% of the market. It decides it wants a car radio and starts to design its own. Suddenly, 95% of the cars that shipped worldwide would have the “Toyocedes audio system”. The analogy is not entirely correct here since you can install multiple media players into Windows. Let’s fix the analogy. Toyocedes still makes space available so you can mount your own radio.
Would this be enough for electronics manufacturers to survive?
This situation gets worse. In addition to normal FM radio, Toyocedes has now developed a new radio system, the “Toyocedes digital radio system”. The workings of this system are intellectual property and Toyocedes is trying to patent it. Electronic manufacturers make no money with car-radio’s anymore, but they still make money by selling broadcast equipment. They have designed their own digital radio system.
Toyocedes starts selling equipment to radio stations so they can broadcast the “Toyocedes digital audio system”.
What would happen?
Few people would have bought a radio that can play the competing digital radio standard. So, radio stations can decide to continue boradcasting in FM-radio (compare with Mpeg-1 video or something) or decide to use the much better Toyocedes digital radio system.
How many electronics manufacturers would still sell broadcasting equipment?
Suppose the EU gets annoyed with the situation and decidees:
– Offer a car without a radio and make it commercially attractive
– Publish technical details of the Toyocedes digital radio system and all your other interfaces.
Would that be an unfair ruling?
I agree 100% with the first part of your post but I would propose a different analogy to the second part of your story. Let’s talk about car radio’s.
Some car manufacturers ship theirs cars with radios that are fixed into the car. The user cannot easily remove the radio, but has advantage that the built-in radio shares the display with the GPS-positioning system etc.
This is no problem, because the market is free and each car manufacturer can make it’s own deal with an electronics manufacturer. There will still be car manufacturers not interrested in this, so the consumer can buy a car without radio and install a radio to his wishes.
Now, suppose there would be a car manufacturer, say Toyocedes, which has 95% of the market. It decides it wants a car radio and starts to design its own. Suddenly, 95% of the cars that shipped worldwide would have the “Toyocedes audio system”. The analogy is not entirely correct here since you can install multiple media players into Windows. Let’s fix the analogy. Toyocedes still makes space available so you can mount your own radio.
Would this be enough for electronics manufacturers to survive?
This situation gets worse. In addition to normal FM radio, Toyocedes has now developed a new radio system, the “Toyocedes digital radio system”. The workings of this system are intellectual property and Toyocedes is trying to patent it. Electronic manufacturers make no money with car-radio’s anymore, but they still make money by selling broadcast equipment. They have designed their own digital radio system.
Toyocedes starts selling equipment to radio stations so they can broadcast the “Toyocedes digital audio system”.
What would happen?
Few people would have bought a radio that can play the competing digital radio standard. So, radio stations can decide to continue boradcasting in FM-radio (compare with Mpeg-1 video or something) or decide to use the much better Toyocedes digital radio system.
How many electronics manufacturers would still sell broadcasting equipment?
Suppose the EU gets annoyed with the situation and decidees:
– Offer a car without a radio and make it commercially attractive
– Publish technical details of the Toyocedes digital radio system and all your other interfaces.
Would that be an unfair ruling?
I my browser went nuts. Apologies and I’ll report abuse myself.
Okay, okay, I get your point…
I would be for the publishing of technical details but maybe not for the car without a radio. Like I said, they should have the right to put whatever they want as long as they play fair. Locking manufacturers with their patented digital system is not fair… but I believe that putting their own radio is as these electronic manufacturers could deal with other car manufacturers. In fact, they could help them to unite together to fight the giant Toyocedes. That’s pretty much what I think would be the best. I believe that governments shouldn’t meddle with business and should rather serve the people. If the people choose Toyocedes because they’re really better, I don’t see any problem with that. Then again, that’s just me and I understand that some people have different values/opinions…
By the way, I know that the EC ordered Microsoft to publish some specs but to what I’ve read, they could patent them and ask royalties for their use. Big corporations like Sun, IBM or Novell could pay them to use their technology but smaller company probably won’t. That is unfair.
I’m not sure why anyone would want to use MS Windows in the first place, however the fine is okay, but the EU should not be able to dictate what software components are distributed as part of the Microsoft product.
I know that if the EU shouldn’t be allowed to dictate the Microsoft product line, that means that the fine would be nullified, but I don’t mind that the fine goes forward for no other reason than Microsoft getting kicked in the ass with no explanation.
and that gives the advantage to companies who bend, break or try to make the rules. I know that Microsoft has paid out hundreds of millions to other companies and in fines but, because of the glacial pace of the justice system, these sums barely add up to more than a couple percentage points of their cash reserves.
Not only that but very little has been accomplished to relax their stranglehold on the PC and they’ve spent years defending
the low dividend payout to their shareholders by claiming they may need cash on hand to defend themselves in court.
I don’t see that the US courts have the backbone to really deal with M$; let’s see if foreign courts have what it takes to give them their comeuppance.
“barely add up to more than a couple percentage points of their cash reserves.”
It’s not even that, it’s a percent of a percent unfortunately. What needs to happen is that they need to get hit with a big’ol $20B fine, and told to pay it by close of business or close their doors until they pay up.
That my friend would cause the action that needs to occur which would be to remove ALL senior management, and restructure their company into one that obeys the laws of our land.
“Monopoly” is a word used by the state to get their hands as deep into the pockets of a successful enterprise as possible.
…
Do you honestly think the EU government is worried about consumers in Europe as much as they are taking a swing and collecting some cash from MS?
Exactly, after all, the “EU government” gets to keep the fine for themselves and buy luxury yachts with it.
Right?
Fate plays a role in the reality that we are faced with, or call it what you want, but nobody can get away clean, not even the bad guys. That’s nature in action, not just trade laws.
In the computer industry, maintaining control over the technology is crutial to sucessful deployment of products, because that control relates to ownership, and the relationship between owner and customer is the same as drug dealer and drug addict, the customer is dependant upon the vendor to the extent of addiction. It’s rent, not ownership that Microsoft offers it’s customers, and once you rent, you can no longer qualify for a mortgage.
“That my friend would cause the action that needs to occur which would be to remove ALL senior management, and restructure their company into one that obeys the laws of our land.”
No, what a fine that large would do would be to cause them to shut down operations in the EU, leaving them immune to whatever court decisions the EU comes up with. You people have no concept of what that type of precedent would do to all businesses.
If you think MS is some horrible monopoly, then you are too young to remember *IBM*.
I still read some people pitty MS , Linux comes with their mediaplayers as well, etc etc.
The point is that you can’t delete any MS program from windows xp, if you don’t do some tricks or use XPlite to do it. I don’t want to have an operating system on my pc which uses 100’s of MB’s for things I don’t use, I pay for every MB of my hard drive.
Then people say, use Linux instead of Windows, you have the choice.
Let’s see if we actually have.
because of the MS monopoly position… Computer “specialists” -the ones with a pc shop who people call when they got pc trouble-
and other people in the business will have to know how to work with the system, how to solve problems in it, etc…
There is no choice, a lot of people will have to work with MS windows to earn money in the computer business.
On schools , universities , etc. Students get some of their courses in powerpoint, word, excel, etc formats. A course in Powerpoint is mostly a pain in the ass to print by the way. The fault lies with these professors who apparantly expect everyone owns MS office and windows. This is not MS’s fault, it’s the stupidity of teachers. No wonder it’s hard to switch to Linux (or other), every family with kids must have a windows pc for school use. The basic informatics lessons kids get here at the age of 12 to 16 is about the use of windows and office, and rely on practice at home. If they don’t … they fail their year.
This is a sad case, even with free alternatives as OpenOffice , they prefer teaching for MS Office. Why ? No not because MS’s product is so much better, it’s because there are already courses for MS Office everywhere, thus the teachers won’t have to make 1 themselves. Most of the teachers are that lazy and lack real “teaching will” (can express that better in my native language).
The EU government fines MS, but deep down the chain, where government reaches our kids in school, MS products are still required. And I don’t see that change in the near future, people use what they got taught. It’s a vicious circle.
“everyone is free to use Linux” is completely true. But “everyone is free to use Linux, and not windows” that’s another case…
grtz
That’s why when you bring up your kids, you teach them the value of freedom and how to get around that indoctrinating crap. My children have little knowledge of microsoft and their products, but they do know how to reformat a word doc in openoffice so other brainwashed children and teachers can use/read it! They also understand the value of open standards and the restrictions imposed by following sheep!
Till
“If you think MS is some horrible monopoly, then you are too young to remember *IBM*.”
Or for that matter Novell. It is going to be very interesting to watch Novell attempt to get themselves back into a position of strength in the market, or the good graces of the age 40+ business crowd.
It has little or nothing to do with their current or soon to be product offerings. It has everything to do with the attitude of people who are making purchasing decisions.
Far too many of us remember the Novell of the 1990’s, and more than a few of us will likely boot their salespeople out the front door while tossing their box of doughnuts behind them.
Netware was and is an outstanding product, but it came with a hefty price tag and more often than not very arrogant Novell attitude.
“Hey, but Linux and MacOS come with a media player as well, why not sue them?”
Hello McFly, someone home? Neither Linux nor MacOS have a 90% market share in desktop operating systems, while Microsoft has been proven to be a monopoly by US court before!
#1: rather than saying “why not sure them”, instead answer the question posed by Microsoft: If every desktop operating system ships with a media player, why is it wrong for Windows to ship with a media player? Additionally, Windows has been shipping with a media player for 12 years now, longer than some of their competitors in the media player market have existed, and WMP’s market share is 30% or less. As for the 90%+ market share in desktop operating systems, don’t forget that MacOS is not counted in that figure at all, because the US (and EU) courts defined the market based on x86 PCs (and the EU also ruled against Microsoft server operating systems in the sub-$25,000 server market, where they are still far less than 90% of the market).
“Why WMP and not IE?”
It’s too late to make them unbundle the IE now, since Microsoft embedded it so deep in the system already, and the harmful effect has been done already. IE should have been stoped a long time ago, but now it’s too late.
WMP was shipped in Windows long before IE. The EU was going after streaming media specifically, but after finding Microsoft’s practices anti-competetive for including streaming media functionality with Windows, they ordered them to take out all media (streaming or not) functionality. For some reason the obvious punishment (the one fitting the crime) seems to me to be to force them to remove the codec from the shipped operating system, make people download it like they do the competing players (since people download Real Player and QuickTime simply for codec support).
Actually I think the browser market is at the process of recovering right now, because more and more people start to notice that IE has more holes than a swiss cheese, and also lacks lots of features compared to other browsers, as it hasn’t been updated by Microsoft for a very long time.
So, in other words, Microsoft might actually be losing market share in the browser market because other products compete on their own merits? Isn’t it then conceivable that Netscape lost market share in the browser market for similar reasons? Just as IE has not had any significant updates in 2-3 years, Netscape went through a similar phase. On the other hand, many of the features that other browsers have can be obtained for IE through the use of 3rd party software. I wonder if those 3rd parties will complain when (if) Microsoft adds those features (tabbed browsing, popup blocking, ad filters, etc).
BTW, AOL got 750 million Dollars from Microsoft because of the Netscape case, so those people who think that the 497 million Euros that Microsoft shall pay to the EU is too much should think again.
Yet that was a settlement, not a judgment, and involved additional licensing and promotional deals, including AOL’s use of IE for 7 years.
As for the WMP, Microsoft want to use their over 90% share of the desktop market to break into the media market. As soon as they would have managed that, they’d kill all other formats, remove support for alternative formats from the WMP, and everyone without a WMP would be screwed.
In 12 years of shipping WMP, they haven’t managed to provide a single format that takes a dominant position in the market. Despite the dropping market share of RealNetwork’s streaming media format, many other formats and players have shown an increasing market share in the face of competition from Microsoft.
And that is why WMP has to be at least slowed down now (remember the EU don’t want Microsoft to remove the WMP completely, just to provide an alternative version without the WMP, so customers have a choice; of course that’s a problem for Microsoft, because they like to make the choices for their customers, if they like it or not).
The EU did not show any proof that the player or format from Microsoft had gained any significant market share at the expense of other players. They did not show that the inclusion of WMP excluded end-users from choosing to use other players and formats. Furthermore, they did not show that customers would want Windows without a media player pre-installed.
“The EU just want some money from big firms!”
Do you know how much money Microsoft makes, and how much tax they pay? I don’t have any figures, but I believe I read that Microsoft pay almost no taxes, at least compared to what they earn!
Of course, that’s what everyone seems to believe not only about big corporations, but also about rich people in general. I suppose Bill Gates pays no taxes, either. The truth is that Microsoft’s taxes are reported on their SEC filings, so anyone can feel free to look them up (Microsoft posts them on their website). With a quick check against Apple, MS paid just over 28% of their income last quarter in taxes, while Apple paid just over 27%. RealNetworks (who brought the complaints for this case) paid ~.0004% of their gross profit in taxes, but of course they had an operating loss of ~$5 million (over 1.5 million of which was antitrust litigation). On a good note, even with RealNetworks’ spending on litigation, they didn’t lose as much money in 2003 as they did in 2002, because their gross profit went up $2 million and their spending decreased $10 million (mostly losses on excess office facilities).
Talking about money, what about the money grabbing licence system from Microsoft?
If you want to have them investigate software licensing, feel free to call them on it. While looking at Microsoft, though, you should also look at their competitors. Make sure that Microsoft is really doing something that other software developers are not.
BTW, the EU didn’t just pick on Microsoft because they wanted money, they started investigations because of complaints regarding uncompetative business practices uttered by US firms (yes, that’s right, US firms, not EU ones)!
One of that firms was Sun, which now has been silenced by Microsoft with a payment of 2 billion Dollars.
Sun, what media player do they make again? RealNetworks was another of those firms. I hope you really enjoy their software. I haven’t used it myself in years because it was so bad.
Who thinks that Microsoft is a nice firm that is unlawfully sentenced by the evil EU should think again!
But I guess a lot of people still believe the MS propaganda and let MS make the thinking for them, but don’t come screaming when it’s too late!
Of course, it’s always about good and evil, nice and mean. Everyone just wants to go to the store and buy Windows without having to deal with the hassle of having a web browser and media player built into it; until they remember that they don’t know how to get a web browser and media player without a web browser installed on their system.
“If you think MS is some horrible monopoly, then you are too young to remember *IBM*”
This person clearly knows nothing about IBM history. When IBM was considered a monoply, there was NO other competition in the market. So, by default that made them a monopoly. In Microsoft’s case, there are clearly other alternatives and competition.
“If you think MS is some horrible monopoly, then you are too young to remember *IBM*”
“This person clearly knows nothing about IBM history. When IBM was considered a monoply, there was NO other competition in the market. So, by default that made them a monopoly. In Microsoft’s case, there are clearly other alternatives and competition.”
If IBM would had enough guts to ship OS/2, rather than “allowing” MS to run over their sorry butt, perhaps this current monopoly thing could have been avoided. I will always look back at IBM’s decision to ship Windows 95 instead of OS/2 on their own systems as one of the worst business decisions ever.
The bean counts at IBM just couldn’t handle the stress of competition for business, rather than having it handed to them.
JB: “This person clearly knows nothing about IBM history. When IBM was considered a monoply, there was NO other competition in the market. So, by default that made them a monopoly. In Microsoft’s case, there are clearly other alternatives and competition.”
It’s like *you* clearly know nothing…
IBM was considered a monopoly in the sixties, IIRC, so we’re talking about mainframe and not peecees…
If every desktop operating system ships with a media player, why is it wrong for Windows to ship with a media player?
1. Other operating systems don’t have a desktop monopoly.
2. You can simply delete or uninstall those players, try that with WMP in WinXP!
Windows has been shipping with a media player for 12 years now, longer than some of their competitors in the media player market have existed, and WMP’s market share is 30% or less.
How do you calculate that market share, or is that merely an assumption?
Microsoft have a potential market share of about 90%, and that’s what counts. Because that way they can lure media providers into using WMA (“Hey, you know 90% of the computer users have it, surely that is enough for your presentation, isn’t it?”), and I bet enough of the people who make decisions will fall for it, although they would reach 100% of the users by using MPEG instead.
As for the 90%+ market share in desktop operating systems, don’t forget that MacOS is not counted in that figure at all
I thought it was. If it isn’t what are the real percentages then?
Not that it matters, because MacOS isn’t any “real” competition for Windows, unless more people start realising that they are better off with Macs.
and the EU also ruled against Microsoft server operating systems in the sub-$25,000 server market, where they are still far less than 90% of the market
That’s because Microsoft want to use their desktop monopoly combined with proprietary cilent-server interfaces to get an advantage in that market as well.
WMP was shipped in Windows long before IE.
True, but the IE was made “uninstallable” much earlier than the WMP.
The EU was going after streaming media specifically, but after finding Microsoft’s practices anti-competetive for including streaming media functionality with Windows, they ordered them to take out all media (streaming or not) functionality.
Microsoft don’t have to generally remove the WMP, but they shall provide an alternative Windows version without the WMP. That’s a big difference!
For some reason the obvious punishment (the one fitting the crime) seems to me to be to force them to remove the codec from the shipped operating system, make people download it like they do the competing players (since people download Real Player and QuickTime simply for codec support).
First of all, don’t expect such people to know the difference between a player, formats, and codecs. Just yesterday I read a discussion in a more techincally oriented forum, and even these people were mixing all terms (one claimed “Ogg Vorbis” was a container, and the next corrected him that “Ogg” is for sound and “Vorbis” for video).
And secondly, don’t you think that Microsoft would simply add a dialog to the Windows installation saying: “The Installer noticed that new codecs are available. Do you want to download them now?”
Actually, they might even do the same thing for the Windows without WMP: “This Windows is missing the WMP. Do you want to download it now?”
I.e. zero effect altogether.
So, in other words, Microsoft might actually be losing market share in the browser market because other products compete on their own merits? Isn’t it then conceivable that Netscape lost market share in the browser market for similar reasons?
There are several reasons why IE became the primary browser:
a) It came preinstalled with every Windows (and even MacOS).
b) It didn’t stick to the W3C standards, so sites built for the IE specifically simply didn’t work with other browsers.
In 12 years of shipping WMP, they haven’t managed to provide a single format that takes a dominant position in the market.
But recently I certainly do notice more and more use of WMV3, and that codec doesn’t play too well with MPlayer and VLC at the moment, not to mention that it also doesn’t work perfectly with WMP for Mac either.
The EU did not show any proof that the player or format from Microsoft had gained any significant market share at the expense of other players.
Simply browse the internet, and you’ll find much more streaming media that needs the WMP than a few years ago.
They did not show that the inclusion of WMP excluded end-users from choosing to use other players and formats.
Why is there such a problem with all those unpatched IEs? Quite simply, because John User uses what he has preinstalled. Do you really think they would download another player, epecially since they cannot even uninstall the WMP?
Furthermore, they did not show that customers would want Windows without a media player pre-installed.
I would want it without the WMP. The only reason I have it are the codecs, because from version 7 onwards it became basically unusable.
If you want to have them investigate software licensing, feel free to call them on it. While looking at Microsoft, though, you should also look at their competitors. Make sure that Microsoft is really doing something that other software developers are not.
So, who else has the stupid OEM licences or a licence on the bootloader that doesn’t permit PC firms to install another operating system besides their own OS?
Sun, what media player do they make again?
None. They were complaining because of the proprietary client-server interfaces I mentioned above. Of course Sun got the documentation of those through the deal with Microsoft, and now are out of the game.
RealNetworks was another of those firms. I hope you really enjoy their software. I haven’t used it myself in years because it was so bad.
I also don’t like their proprietary formats. But at least there are a lesser threat to the market than Microsoft are.
Everyone just wants to go to the store and buy Windows without having to deal with the hassle of having a web browser and media player built into it; until they remember that they don’t know how to get a web browser and media player without a web browser installed on their system.
That could be easily covered with cheap shareware CD-ROMs in the store. And those people who aren’t totally from the point-and-click generation should still know how to use an FTP client.
I was just thinking of why I have a hotmail account and use MSN. Guess what , I had to subscribe for a hotmail address in computer class years ago. I used icq before that but school kinda pushed towards hotmail and msn. Just realize that now O_o.
Y we had to subscribe hotmail? to learn sending mails and … use Outlook Express!
Damn, it’s pathetic =/
“Firefox: is a beta, and has only recently been released
Opera: has ads, or costs money, both of which are unpopular, and is also very cluttered in its default configuration ”
IE also costs money, and mozilla is not beta and is also superior to IE.
“Monopoly” is a word used by the state to get their hands as deep into the pockets of a successful enterprise as possible”
Monopoly is an economic term. A monopoly is a firm which has control over a market share so thas it is the only firm and it cuases barriers to entry.
If I am not mistaken even Adam Smith recognized the dangers of monopoly.
IBM were the ONLY ones producing computers in the sixties, so by default they were considered a monopoly. vlastimil, get your facts straight.
‘Do you honestly think the EU government is worried about consumers in Europe’
-Perhaps they do…Which may come as a surprise, but the
world consists of more than just the parochial USA….
‘ as much as they are taking a swing and collecting some cash from MS?’
-Don’t think the eu needs that money, plenty enough over here…
More a matter of principle I presume, but eevn that may
come as a suprise…
AvS
IBM were the ONLY ones producing computers in the sixties, so by default they were considered a monopoly. vlastimil, get your facts straight.
Every heard of Digital Equipment Corporation (eg. the PDP-series, although these were minicomputers) or Control Data Corporation (eg. CDC 6600)?
Why don’t you get your facts straigt?
Yes, IBM invented the term “computer architecture” and byte addressing with the System/360, but it certainly wasn’t the only computer in the 1960s!
There may have been other computers around in the 60’s, but IBM did not use monopolistic practices like Microsoft to gain their position. They jsut developed a solid product.
“The 6600 caused IBM to respond in two ways: to examine a new architecture, ASCC that was ultimately cancelled; and the pre-announcement of a computer that was yet to be designed and delivered in order to stop CDC from getting orders.”
http://research.microsoft.com/users/gbell/craytalk/sld046.htm
“You know, there are just some things that Bill Gates just can’t let go of. Tablets and Interactive Television. ”
And BASIC.
MS close shop in EU? That would be the day. *Dreaming*
Seriously, if they got a real punishment perhaps that would make them sit up straight, even if I doubt it. They are too arrogant and stuck in thier belief that laws don’t apply to them, and that if in trouble they can always buy themselves of.
What I’m quite sure about is that they won’t leave, since the EU was the worlds largest economy last time I checked. I don’t think those parasites will leave volontary.
If you think IBM was a monopoly, you’re too young to remember AT&T. Every generation has a big horrible monopoly which needs a swift kick in the butt to make it obey the law or risk getting broken up. AT&T chose to ignore the government and was broken up. IBM chose to start playing fair and survived to become even better. Microsoft learned to buy off the government and become worse than ever. A lead Microsoft attorney now leads the committee to make government policy on the handling of monopolies. How more sick can a company become?
“Personally, I think it was kinda dumb for the EU to pick on WMP, when (IMHO) it is IE that is the real problem, at least as far as tie-in goes.”
They were asked to investigate that by our US friends from Real and SUN. To say they “should have better investigated some other part of the Windows OS” is therefore out of line. They weren’t asked to do so. But, please go ahead…
“The current law is a bit ludicrous to me as it’s like asking a car manufacturer to use his competitor’s brakes or engines.”
I think it’s interesting that you mention that, because a few months ago there was a post on here about I believe the EU and Microsoft, and I had made a point of, “Why is it legal, then, for GM to install GM steering wheels on their vehicles?” But that comment was nitpicked and shot down because obviously you can’t map 100% a comparison like that. My point was and is that it’s Microsoft’s product, if they want to install Microsoft “parts” that Windows won’t work without, then that’s their business, just as much as it is my business not to buy their product. And before I get a bunch of replies saying, “OMG DEWD BUT ITS TEH LAW LOLS!!!11”, I understand that it’s the law, I’m saying that I don’t feel it SHOULD be the law.
A car without steering wheel doesn’t function, so the steering wheel can’t be compared to MediaPlayer, IE, OE, etc. Because windows works without any of these programs. The steering wheel in windows would be for example the GUI.
The motor still runs without but you can’t control it, steer it in the right direction.
the MS program, WMP is just an accesoire.
People should stop comparing to cars imho.
“MS close shop in EU? That would be the day. *Dreaming*
Seriously, if they got a real punishment perhaps that would make them sit up straight, even if I doubt it. They are too arrogant and stuck in thier belief that laws don’t apply to them, and that if in trouble they can always buy themselves of. ”
This is somewhat a typical response from the more extreme Linux zealots. If you can’t convince people to switch to Linux, hope you can *force* them.
“This person clearly knows nothing about IBM history. When IBM was considered a monoply, there was NO other competition in the market. So, by default that made them a monopoly. In Microsoft’s case, there are clearly other alternatives and competition.”
This person clear knows nothing about computer history.
There most certainly were other alternatives. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase “nobody gets fired for buying IBM?”
“There may have been other computers around in the 60’s, but IBM did not use monopolistic practices like Microsoft to gain their position. They jsut developed a solid product.”
Yes, they did (use tactics judged monopolistic). Actually, in both cases the complaint is that they used monopolistic tactics to maintain and extend into other fields. You can’t use “monopolistic practices” if you aren’t yet a monopoly.
Ok. The seats. The car* will function just fine without the seats, though obviously there are going to be some serious issues. Such is the case with removing IE and to a much lesser extent, WMP. The point, again, is that it is Microsoft’s product, not the consumers’, and such, it SHOULD be up to Microsoft whether they package Windows with their software or not. If I feel that it’s unfair business practice, then I’m not going to buy their product, and chances are I’ll put up a little webbie on which I shoot my mouth off about the horrors of Microsoft.
I don’t agree with many of Microsoft’s business practices– I think the courts should fine them over their less than ethical wheelings and dealings, instead of going after them for packaging their product with… their product. It’d be a much more difficult case for Microsoft to defend themselves against, and just think of all the bad pr they’d get. The current situation is sort of like giving a fix-it ticket to a known robber for having a noisy exhaust. On his car. Which he drives.
Without seats.
* I live in Michigan. Everybody in Michigan is in a constant state of “I’m Working on my Car.” Everybody, without exception, except those who are not. Without exception.
MS close shop in EU? That would be the day. *Dreaming*
“Seriously, if they got a real punishment perhaps that would make them sit up straight, even if I doubt it. They are too arrogant and stuck in thier belief that laws don’t apply to them, and that if in trouble they can always buy themselves of. ”
This is somewhat a typical response from the more extreme Linux zealots. If you can’t convince people to switch to Linux, hope you can *force* them.
Huh? Are you going for the “bolt out of the blue” award?
What does Linux have to do with this situation? And more importantly, how are “we” going to force people to use free software? Charge them? Make exclusive OEM deals? Maybe leverage our OpenOffice monopoly?
“Huh? Are you going for the “bolt out of the blue” award?
What does Linux have to do with this situation? And more importantly, how are “we” going to force people to use free software? Charge them? Make exclusive OEM deals? Maybe leverage our OpenOffice monopoly?”
By using the government to get rid of the software they’re using now, leaving them no choice.
“By using the government to get rid of the software they’re using now, leaving them no choice.”
A fantastic change of mind.. The last time you sprouted off it was about MS closing down in the EU if they got punished, much like som kid trying to take his ball and go home if he dosen’t get to decide the rules. Now, all of a sudden it’s the Penguinistas who uses the bad EU to toss out wonderful Microsoft.
I recommend you decide what you really think. And I would also recommend not jumping to conclusions. I don’t use linux, and I don’t give a hoot in hell if people does.
That’s not the point. Try to find it, and stick to it instead of ranting.
“A fantastic change of mind.. The last time you sprouted off it was about MS closing down in the EU if they got punished, much like som kid trying to take his ball and go home if he dosen’t get to decide the rules. Now, all of a sudden it’s the Penguinistas who uses the bad EU to toss out wonderful Microsoft.”
Hardly. If fines become too large, any business would choose to shut down operations in the country that levied them. That wouldn’t be a good thing for the consumer in that country. You think it’d be a GREAT thing – in fact, it’s a dream for you – (which leads me to believe you want Linux to replace it). I know what I really think. I don’t think you *think* during your ranting.
“Hardly. If fines become too large, any business would choose to shut down operations in the country that levied them.”
Perhaps, but you fail to grasp how much mony there is to be made in the EU. The fine that would do what you are whining about would have to be monumental, if it should be enough to make it unprofitable to do business over here. And as long as there is profit to be made, I don’t think they’ll leave. In fact the if they did, the shareholders would have their heads on pikes.
“That wouldn’t be a good thing for the consumer in that country.”
Since when became more choice a bad thing? I do no deny that there would be trouble before things were up to speed, however, MS-windows is not the be all, end all OS.
There were computers before there was M$ and there will problably still be computers when they are gone. If Microsoft decides to their ball and go home that would just speed up that process about 10.000 times.
“(which leads me to believe you want Linux to replace it).”
You are using false reasoning. Where do I say anything about linux? Methinks you know very little about many things, among them linux.
“Perhaps, but you fail to grasp how much mony there is to be made in the EU. The fine that would do what you are whining about would have to be monumental, if it should be enough to make it unprofitable to do business over here.”
Huge fines levied to an American company that has business operations in Europe would make many American companies reconsider whether or not it’s worth it doing business in the EU. The EU has a large economy, but it’s also largely in bad shape. Once Brussels learns it can shore up its revenue by bleeding multinationals, it’ll get worse.
“Since when became more choice a bad thing?”
You want to *remove* choice from the market.
“You are using false reasoning. Where do I say anything about linux? Methinks you know very little about many things, among them linux.”
There’s nothing else even remotely credible to replace Windows at the moment.
This is old news, and I doubt you’ll read it, but, hey – never mind.
“but it’s also largely in bad shape”
Without hope of recovering, no doubt since you think it’s a good idea to leave unless you don’t get to decide the rules.
“You want to *remove* choice from the market.”
No, I hope a predatory monopoly goes away. BTW it was you who said M$ should leave on their on behalf. Thing is, this is our ballpark, our rules. If they don’t fit, your are free to leave. If you play by the rules you are welcome. It’s as simpel as that.
“There’s nothing else even remotely credible to replace Windows at the moment.”
Very narrowminded, and uneducated. The correct answear is that it depends. There are lots and lots of people who would do just fine with a distro like knoppix or some other OS and openoffice. Of course there are those who wouldn’t, but if M$ decides to take their ball and go home, there will be alternatives, because there is profit for those who can present one.
So, the only thing such a move would accomplish is to marginalize microsoft and cost them a fortune + complete loss of market and mindshare.
In other words, a really stupid move, all because a childish tantrum.