MS Putting the Squeeze on Alternative Audio 449
renard writes: "Some interesting developments during the last two days of the Microsoft antitrust trial, as reported by AP: MS Executive Linda Averett has admitted that Internet Explorer trumps user preferences for audio playback, and explains away a failure of IE6 searches to find RealAudio sites as a "mistake by the search team." My personal favorite: an MS-internal email exchange where one employee suggests that everyone "Remember the 'embrace and extend' campaigns we've used in the past," and an MS executive admonishes that "We need to keep all of this off the airwaves." See also related stories at Yahoo, CNN, and the NYT."
Just gets worse for MS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just gets worse for MS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just gets worse for MS (Score:5, Funny)
"The judge found us guilty... that *proves* they were biased against us!"
Re:Just gets worse for MS (Score:3, Interesting)
The judge is a woman- and she seems to be well aware of this strategy of theirs.
I would be very surprised if she isn't sitting back, watching carefully, and getting mad at the States every time they stumble or screw up. If they make an error, she pounces on it and refuses to let them put any weight on the error.
I think she sees quite plainly that Microsoft is an illegal monopolist running amok- and she's damned if she's going to screw up like Jackson did, by betraying any sort of bias that could be used to vacate her judgement. She's gonna put forth a very _controlled_ judgement that happens to make MS very, very unhappy.
Re:Just gets worse for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
And forget how Gates acted. The mere fact that he didnt explode like everybody exptected doesnt turn him into a favour for MS. Basically what he said was : "It is bad for Microsoft if the settlement goes through.". Well, this is what this whole thing is about. You could go even further and translate what he said into
Re:Just gets worse for MS (Score:2)
From reading the testimony, it's pretty clear the states remedy proposal won't be adopted as it's just too full of holes. You can never really interpret the actions of a fair and impartial judge, because sometimes they ask counter questions just to try to help enforce a point on the record, rather than really questioning it.
But I suspect the end result of this trial will be much closer to the DOJ settlement than the anti-MS contingent would like. Which probably means another round of appeals.
Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but if I tried to pass off some of the crap that MS has in these trials, i'ld be in jail on contempt charges.
Maybe i'm naive, but i think the gov doesnt really give a fxck about MS or their 'anti-competitive' practices, they just brought out the smoke and mirrors...
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the govt. used to care, and used to want to bring anti-trust charges against Microsoft, but then, Microsoft used to not donate money to any political party.
It's interesting to see how both policies changed around the same time.
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:3, Insightful)
-B
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't work for Microsoft, but I had a member of Newt Gingrich's staff tell me that the 'problem with Microsoft is that they make all this money but they do not play a social role'.
For anyone who knows beltway speak that is code for 'give campaign donnations' in the same way that supporting the 'right of southern states to cellebrate their heritage' is code for 'we are racists and would like to see the return of the KKK and segregation but we will settle for flying the stars and bars from the capitol' etc. etc.
At the time Gates had recently donated the first $100 mil. to his foundation and announced his intention to donate substantially more so the 'social role' considered was not charitable in nature.
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There were two things that changed the government's position towards microsoft...the views of the content industry and the views of Computer makers (Dell, Gateway etc).
The content industry realizes that it is unlikely that they'll be able to force hardware to include DRM (not that Fritzie will stop trying). However, they don't need that as long as MS controls 95% of the desktop OS market. If they can get DRM onto 95% of desktops, they'll be happy. If MS's monopoly position weakens, then consumers might start to look for an OS without a DRM solution.
The PC makers used to want MS punished. They were sick of MS's overly-restrictive OEM license agreements. But then the bottom dropped out of the PC market. People didn't feel the need to upgrade their computers since they could run everything they needed to on their current setups. There was no killer app driving people to upgrade their computers. This is where XP's bloat starts to work in its favor. XP, to PC makers, is the killer app that will drive people to upgrade.
So, when Intel, AMD, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, the RIAA and MPAA call their favorite senators and tell them that they'd like Microsoft to get a slap on the wrist, the government complies.
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your premise might have a great deal of substance.
But remember that MS has not just been using its monopoly to tax a broad base of small individuals.
It has been extending its means of taxation by leveraging its monopoly to trounce other large businesses.
While those businesses have no where near the financial resources of Microsoft, they are businesses nonetheless(Netscape, Sun, Oracle, AOL/TW), and therefore entitled to at least some of the same bent political process favoring businesses.
hoping you are wrong (Score:2)
The way MS eecutives and apologists are screaming reminds me of the way Republicans were protesting the innocence of Richard Nixon, right up to the day He pesigned as President due to the threatened impeachment. There is a similarity in the nervous hysteria.
Of course, clinton showed it is possible to survive if you have your partisans in a row, and people are going after you for the wrong reasons. Mind you, I think Clinton should have been nailed, but not for the reasons that were used.
Keeping on point, the appearance in some quarters is that of superbly restrained terror.
These folks don't get it.
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:2, Funny)
> The States came after Microsoft because they had dollar signs in their eyes. Nothing more, nothing less. They just wanted a piece of the pie. MS's competitors are just as bad. Why do you think all of MS's competitors are suddenly coming out of the woodwork and bringing on lawsuits? Because they know MS is in a state of weakness. What better way to eliminate your biggest competition than through litigation? Not to mention, being ruled a monopoly is a surefire way to ensure every con artist and halfwit who can't make it in the market on their own will slither out of the woodwork and make bogus claims against you. Oracle and Sun are a big example of this.
So... What exactly do you do at Microsoft?
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:2)
I think that works better than "Where Do You Want To Go Today" as a Microsoft tagline.
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're one of those idiots who think there should be no rules in business then let's take that to the logical conclusion. If someone gets in my way in business, I have every right to have a guy named Vinnie show up on their doorstep and put a moon roof in their skull. If you don't like that option, then get real and admit that business is legislated and Microsoft has broken a quite a few rules in doing business. I'd be happy to play it either way, though.
The court has already decided that Microsoft broke the law - now is the time to decide what the just punishment is and what will prevent future abuses. It is fully acceptible that the punishment should harm Microsoft's business and benefit their competitors - it is the level of harm that needs to be decided.
When a person is convicted of a crime - as Microsoft has been - the court has a responsibility to mete out punishment that will deter the criminal from doing so again, protect society from that criminal and set an example for anyone else who might consider breaking the law. Therefore Microsoft should receive a punishment that is stiff enough to make Bill and company think twice before abusing their position, protect their competitors and the public to a reasonable extent and make it unattractive for other companies that hold monopolies now or in the future to follow Microsoft's example.
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The States came after Microsoft because they had dollar signs in their eyes.
Nothing more, nothing less. They just wanted a piece of the pie.
What, so you think that the states will see any settlement money? Did you think that Bill G was going to show up with a huge novelty check with the memo "Sorry for fucking you over"??
I don't know about the other states, but Utah joined as a result of the ongoing litigation with Caldera over DR-DOS. Many of the experts in the case are at the University Of Utah, and after reviewing the facts in the case, they all advised the then attorney general to join the case.
If nothing else, it was an effort to punish Microsoft, and maybe drum up a little more support for the hometown heros Caldera and Novell.
Not to mention, being ruled a monopoly is a surefire way to ensure every con artist and halfwit who can't make it in the market on their own will slither out of the woodwork and make bogus claims against you.
Right - you know I really hate it when I have to go out and pick a telephone provider, or gas station, or what kind of car to drive. Wouldn't it just have been easier if we all drove Ford cars filled with Standard Oil gas while talking on our AT&T phones?
Maybe because if we had let those monopolies stand, AT&T would be charging you $2.00 a minute instead of 15 cents, Ford cars would breaking down ever 10,000 miles forcing you to buy a new one, and gasoline would be at 10 bucks a gallon.
Yeah, these anti-trust laws really suck.
Re:Ok, maybe I am naive.. (Score:3, Funny)
Not like Realplayer is saint-like (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like (Score:4, Interesting)
MS is probably at fault for some of this - but if Real would just realize that their software sucks, and that might be a big reason for people not using it in the first place.
Open message to real: I'm a Linux fanatic. At work, when my Windows users ask "which do I choose at radiowhatever.com, real or ms?" I tell them to use the MS format.
That's how much Real's software sucks. At least we have ogg.
Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, Realplayer is jumping on the "Please feel sorry for us, we're getting h0sed by MS too!" bandwagon.
MS is probably at fault for some of this - but if Real would just realize that their software sucks, and that might be a big reason for people not using it in the first place.
Umm...excuse me, but the article is pointing out that MS, which has been ruled an illegal monopoly by two high courts for similar behavior, is preventing users from playing Real content even when they want to, and preventing them from even locating a competitor's products.
That's irrelevant to whether or not Real sucks relative to WM (I beg to differ on that). It's illegal, unethical, and dangerous. Real may do things that are frickin annoying, but those things are not illegal, and don't threaten the entire IT economy.
Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like (Score:4, Interesting)
In one instance, I can always find a different product that doesn't irritate me and at least tries to dwim. In the other, I'm not given any choice at all. Tack on the fact that choice is being eliminated by a convicted monopolist and actually it is much worse.
Let's not forget ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If a computer had emotions and I installed all these applications at the same time, it would be begging me to format its hard drive to stop the suffering.
Re:Let's not forget ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one 'feature' that i'd love to see beat into the ground. Just about every product that has competitors (as most do) include those stupid @*()#&@( popups to reassociate them with format x. If i wanted program y associated with format x, i woulda left it checked when i installed the bloody thing.
At least most have the option to never show this again... realplayer is just a complete bitch for this, which is why i don't use it. ever. i'm also quickly getting fed up with quicktime's 'UPGRADE TO QUICKTIME PRO', adobe's "THERES MORE TO ACROBAT THAN JUST READER!", and winamp's "VERSION XXX IS NOW OUT! DOWNLOAD?".
but what pisses me off the most is no matter how often you uncheck or say no to all these things, they somehow get mysteriously 'reset' every few weeks.
And is it just me, or are those 'never show this message again' buttons getting fewer and fewer? nowadays they're buried somewhere in the nether regions of the user preferences section, with ever more obscure wording.
Re:Let's not forget ... (Score:2)
Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like (Score:2)
I regard it as just another type of malware. I don't mind the ads, but I do mind the stupid blinking icon in my task bar telling me to upgrade. And I sure as heck dislike the way Real try to hijack a large part of my registry to make it hard to uninstall.
Sound should be treated no differently from image processing. Nobody expects IE to pop up third part image viewers to display JPG or PNG. Why should the browser hand off sound to a separate program that is going to pop up an unnecessary additional dialog panel?
If Real think they are providing value to the user they can always write their own browser shell. It is not that big a deal if you use the windows built in HTML widget, transports etc. In fact they have a lot of the code already.
Browser part of the OS? No... (Score:2, Offtopic)
And, how convenient: as soon as
-c
Re:Browser part of the OS? No... (Score:2, Insightful)
That wouldn't bother me overly much; I don't plan to need to use it. I'm more worried about not being able to leave the browser for anything.
Re:Browser part of the OS? No... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Sneaky (Score:4, Interesting)
When I went to college ... (Score:2)
It had a nice sign over it.
"Do not accidentally, on purpose, press this button."
I believe the same concept applies here.
Re:Sneaky (Score:3)
How can you "accidentally" not show Real Audio search results?
Well, a programmer accidentally writes a filter along the lines of:
if strSrchResult == ["rm"|"ra"] then strSrchResult = null
Then a programmer accidentally copies this filter into the source code.
Then a programmer accidentally enables this part of the source code.
Then a programmer accidentally compiles this (along with the rest of the program).
It's all accidentally easy, dontcha know!
Is this legal?? (Score:5, Interesting)
So the "problem" was presented as evidence of wrong doing, so they went ahead and fixed it. Is this similar to tampering with evidence?
John
Re:Is this legal?? (Score:5, Insightful)
"You can't punish me for that, I stopped doing it when I got caught!" Bah.
Re:Is this legal?? (Score:2, Insightful)
If MS were defending themselves from a "Your software is crappy and insecure" suit, I don't think anyone would be arguing that they shouldn't be able to try to fix any bugs or holes until after the trial was over.
Besides, I suspect that testifying that the problem was resolved qualifies as an admission that a problem existed. No need to prove something that both parties agree to.
Re:Is this legal?? (Score:2)
So long republic, hello Empire.
Completely Legal (Score:2)
No, this is not evidence tampering. The version of Windows used to present this "bug/feature" is still intact. What Microsoft has done is released a patch to fix this "bug/feature" for the general public. The copy of Windows submitted into evidence is still in the same state as it was upon being submitted.
However, fixing this problem does make Microsoft look more guilty (if that is possible).
Embrace and Extend? (Score:3, Funny)
As Nelson would Say....... (Score:3, Funny)
anyway.......
my god, is it just me or do MS execs seem to just not get prosecuted for purgery?
Re:As Nelson would Say....... (Score:3, Funny)
As far as I'm concerned MS execs can take as many laxatives as they want.
Re:As Nelson would Say....... (Score:2)
I do believe that's what the Enron execs are going to get nailed for. Wrong corporate behemoth, but I can understand getting them mixed up.
Re:As Nelson would Say....... (Score:3, Informative)
If MS execs were to be prosecuted for perjury, then the Real execs would have to be as well.
Remember; Real Networks are the people who stood up in court at the start of the trial and claimed (under oath) that Microsoft had crippled their RealPlayer G2 installer.
The real story?
RealPlayer G2's Installer was badly written, and contained bugs.
Microsoft demonstrated where the bugs in the installer were, and hey presto - it worked fine. Any good installer engineer would have been able to fix that - I guess the Real Networks ones are too busy embedding spyware to get the basics right.
So... when are the Real Networks guys going to be prosecuted for perjury?
Simon
I can see how it could happen... (Score:5, Funny)
This is true. The code is very complex and mistakes can easily be made...
if player != realplayer
addList(player);
It could happen...
It WAS a mistake.. (Score:2, Funny)
Judge: "What about searches?"
MS: "Oh, that was a mistake"
Judge: "and the bit about IE ignoring preferences?"
MS: "That was a mistake too."
Judge: "Is there anything that you did that WASN'T a mistake?"
MS: "No, your honor."
Judge: "Can you explain these mistakes to me?"
MS: "Umm, we got caught?"
Re:I can see how it could happen... (Score:3, Interesting)
It happens all the time.
Divide and Conquer (Score:2)
Bah. "Mistake on the part of the Search team." It's more like "Netscape found... and removed. Press OK to apologize."
Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignore the propriatary file formats, ignore the "microsoft tax" contracts, ignore the insane EULA's, Ignore the nasty anti-OpenSource traps in their code releases, (your prof in CSI 101 saw our code so your open source project 5 years later violates our IP...) Ignore all the other dirty tricks they are playing and make them take out the ability to download files, or listen to music out of the box??? what the HECK! The whole organization must be stifling giggles and telling the lawyers to fight it out just so the court doesn't realize how easy athey are getting off.
Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Real Remedies for the Real Problem
1) Microsoft must license products on a RAND scheme (reasonable and non-discriminatory)
2) Microsoft must release full API documentation detailing all APIs that non-OS tasks can call.
3) Microsoft must release full file format documentation
4) Microsoft must NOT release any source code. That won't solve a thing - it will in fact make Microsoft a larger monopoly in the future as people cannot code competing operating systems due to having seen that code!
5) No internal cross-subsidy, similar in function to the limitations the British monopoly BT has
There is more that I cannot recall right now. A possible split in the company: OS vs. Apps & Services to put their application teams on a more level footing and to expose the true cost of the "free" software they give away.
Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:2)
For some reason point 3 is not part of any settlement, it's not part of the state's remedy proposal either. I cannot figure this out, but the states would rather force Microsoft to release the source to Office than just have them document a bloody file format, yet the file format would be far more useful to existing applications. Releasing source would only further entrench an Office monopoly.
My theory is that since the MS competitors wrote the state's proposal that they were looking for a way to get a leg up without having to do much work. Getting the source makes their job easy, writing import/export support for a file format spec is hard work.
As far as point #5. I would have requested a Chinese Wall between OS and Apps&Services group, similar to what now exists within Financial companies between Venture Capital and Investment groups. i.e. the OS team cannot tell the Apps team anything that isn't already available off the public MSDN website. The Apps team has to submit requests in the same manner as any other group would.
Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:2)
Thus, if Dell does not agree to only preload Windows, then Dell may not get Windows XP SE (or whatever) for 6 months-1 year after HPQ gets it.
these are the kinds of loopholes the states are fighting.
Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:2)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/nov01/
licensing is covered under III.B
Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:2)
I wouldn't stop there. Some of the best products are OS add-ins. New filesystems, security products, even drivers depend on the OS API. Why would you want to leave it out?
Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:3, Informative)
I wish. I seem to recall seeing a former MS employee saying though that often there is no documentation even inside the company. Thing is you see, because of the internal structure of the company product teams often don't document their work so as to ensure their project isn't killed or they aren't split up. By keeping the docs inside their heads, they help increase their job security.
This leads to the "secret" APIs in Windows/Office/whatever that Microsofts enemies like to jump on - it's not really an evil conspiracy (though MS do enough evil stuff as it is), it's more an indictment of their internal corporate organisation skills.
Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
No, that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal identifies 9 key areas - browser, email client, and media player are three of them. For each key area, the Microsoft user tool must be removable and replaceable by an OEM without penalty. So, essentially, the OEM buys the stripped Windows and some subset of the 9 components from Microsoft, and gets the other components from other vendors. The OEM is free to configure Windows however it sees fit with respect to the 9 key areas.
Microsoft is NOT forced to ship an operating system that cannot download files. This responsibility has merely shifted to the OEM to configure these 9 tools.
Also, all the Microsoft add-ons must be priced at a pro-rated value relative to the stripped down Windows. That means the OEMs pay for Windows, and pay separately for each add-on based on value added.
With this proposal, and full disclosure of relevant APIs for each of the 9 key areas, competition for userspace tools would be restored to these key markets. Microsoft's leveraging power would be stripped, and its software could only compete on its own merits.
Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows? (Score:2)
Of your very valid complaints, only proprietary file formats bears directly on MS's wish to exclude other competitors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even in the agreement with the DOJ, there is some provision for releasing these formats to other companies (but not to OSS makers).
Wishful Thinking (Score:2, Funny)
I wish a beautiful memeber of the opposite sex would give me an embrace and extend campaign.
How can 'open' win against this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong. If I had to pick between Real, QT, and Windows Media, I'd take Windows Media. QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it. Real runs hidden applications when Windows loads and only recently stopped its practice of asking me if I want to upgrade.
Is the problem with universities? Are any researcher doing work on codecs that could end up in the open forum? Does Ogg Vorbis [google.com] do everything that we need?
"Open" Needs Standards (Score:2, Insightful)
The one crippling characteristic of OSS is that there are few (if any) standards. When there are few standards, and everybody is using something different.
That in itself isn't a bad thing, but if the OSS community wants to overthrow M$, or at the very least claim market (user) share, standards have to be established so that there is one clear and very public alternative to the latest M$ offering.
Re:"Open" Needs Standards (Score:2)
If the OSS community can get behind something and stop arguing which one is better, they may be able to actually send up something that can really compete with Microsoft.
They say divide and conquer. The OSS community is doing half of Microsoft's work for it.
Re:"Open" Needs Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
What better, more standard, standard could there be? Both EMACS and vi read and write the universal linefeed-delimited plain ASCII format by default. That is a hell of a standard!
(I don't know enough about Gnome to comment on KDE vs. Gnome.)
You seem to be using the word "standard" in a Gatesian way, where a particular application is called "standard" if you can get everyone to use that application. When Open Source and Free Software people say "standard" we mean practically the opposite--that you can use any application you want because they all share the underlying APIs and file formats!
Gatesian "standards," when properly implemented, mean no choice. OSS and FS "standards," when properly implemented, mean unlimited choice. Know the difference.
Re:How can 'open' win against this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? If you object to MS, why give in to their products so easily?
QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it. Real runs hidden applications when Windows loads and only recently stopped its practice of asking me if I want to upgrade.
That's the price you pay if you want to steer clear of MS (at least for now.) As long as none of these things are doing harmful activities on your machine, I can't see what the big deal is. Yeah, they nag you. So does your mother.
It any case, QT is what, $30? That's not bad especially when you look at all the extras you get when you pay. Oh, but the incessant cries of outrage follow those kinds of statements.
BUT I WANT IT FREEEEEEEEEE AND IT HAS TO BE CONVEEEEENIENT AND MICROSOFT IS FREEEEEEEEEE AND CONVEEEEENIENT!!!!
MS is like the local drug dealer... gives you the good stuff quick, but just enough to get your addicted. Eventually you'll be paying the big bucks for it and you'll notice the damage only when it's too late. So, pay the piddly-ass $30 of whatever for another media player and get over it. You'll be paying eventually... one way or the other. You may as well ensure that your cash goes to support someone/something who is tolerable.
Besides that, there are known tricks for getting around some of those problems, not all of them illegal either.
--Rick
How to shut up QuickTime's upgrade reminders (Score:5, Informative)
QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it.
;-)
1. Set your system time many years ahead (like 2010)
2. Run QuickTime
3. When it asks you if you would like to upgrade, say no (of course!)
4. QuickTime will then write some secret registry key to remember when it should next remind you to upgrade. Fortunately, your next reminder is now scheduled for the year 2010!
5. Be sure to set your system time back!
Re:How to shut up QuickTime's upgrade reminders (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How can 'open' win against this? (Score:2)
Me, I boot into Linux to watch most non-streaming media. I actually have better luck with decoding most things.
Re:How can 'open' win against this? (Score:2)
Re:How can 'open' win against this? (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with you, and have decided to do something about it. OIC is a video codec I am writing. I hope it will be ready for prime time in a matter of months. No promises though.
Check my sig for a link if you are interested.
Free Software: you have an itch? Scratch it. (Score:2)
There are already good codecs out there, and more on the horizon. Nuppal or xvid come to mind as two excellent codecs (I'm encoding all of my Max Headroom episodes into xvid, and using this methodology [expressivefreedom.org] under GNU/Linux I end up with quality video that exceeds the quality of the program on the television as I was watching the broadcast, easilly burnable onto a data DVD to boot.
Absolutely phenominal, and the xvid (a variant of opendivx if I'm not mistaken) can be scaled down as much as needed for web pages (at a cost in quality and/or resolution).
So, if you want a good, open audio/video codec write a Netscape/IE/Mozilla plugin that supports xvid video with oggvorbis encoded audio. The tools to make the video are already free and exist on virtually every platform
I guarantee you many (perhaps most) web page authors who are doing this sort of thing as a hobby (most websites) and want video would take a free(dom) codec over a non-free one given the choice, similiar capabilities, and the opportunity, and there is no reason for us to be beholden to Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else with all the free tools and implimentations available on just about every platform at this point in the game.
Slightly Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The quote in the story is a little misleading. Here is the full quote:
The Microsoft executive is stating that the discussion of what they are doing and why needs to be kept off the email "airwaves." In my mind, this is actually more damning, because it intimates that he knows what they are doing could get them in trouble.
Implied Intent (Score:2)
It would seem to me that alot of people are implying some evil intent where it's very possible that none may have been. Often when you get a group of people discussing a topic, especially one like "embrace/extend" you get into discussions that should not be had. Additionally you get people responding that know little about what they are talking about or who think they know or who've heard from a friend of a friend. What started as normal business conversation can quickly turn to rumor, conjecture, and assumption. Then when records get supoened the lawyers go through and find a statement like "I heard on the internet that Bill said he was poised to take over the world with some new hidden code". The whole thing gets put into evidence but they only mention "Bill said he was..." and noone ever has the time to put it all in context. Hence you get alot of implied intent by statements that really don't have anything evil behind them. Maybe the veep just didn't want to see "Tom" (the guy who has an opinion about everything (usually a negative one)) get into the discussion and turn it into a flame fest.
Additionally the "Embrace, Extend" ideal is not a bad one. It's the premise that almost everything that we have is built on including opensource. How could we ever progress without embracing what we have and extending upon it. The problem is that there is a last word that keeps getting added to the conversation "Extinguish". I'm not sure that this is something that can be directly attributed to MS or not as I see it passed only by Anti-MS zealots.
"Extinguish" is an ambiguous term. As you embrace a concept and extend it eventually the original concept is replaced by it's newer extended and in theory better counterpart. The original concept is not destroyed, it remains, just unused. But if the "extinguishment" of an object is for the control of the object then you get into the wrongfulness of the practice.
My point is that in order to show wrong doing you have to do more than just throw in a couple of disparate statements made by who knows. You have to show a consistent pattern of intent. You have to have a focus, because if you take 40 different statements by 40 different people in a 1000+ person company you can't really equate that to a conspiracy or evil. On the flip side if you take 40 different statments by 4 different people in the same company and they are of sufficient rank and privilage to motivate the company towards certain practices then you MAY be able to show intent.
Personally I'm just tired of buzz word bingo and buzz phrase bingo where the media and people take statements without qualification and read deeper more meaningful intent into them.
It's like if I said "I want to feed the world" and someone started conspiracy theories about how "I want to rule the world". Oh it all makes perfect sense. If I want to feed the world I could only do it if things were in proper order and how can I get them into the proper order if I don't control everything.
sophistry - 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
not to be paranoid, but... (Score:2)
You always see stuff like this in leaked microsoft emails / memos, whatever...
This makes me wonder if there's anything else out there that they've successfully managed to keep off of the airwaves... I mean, since they keep saying to keep things hush hush it must be working or else they wouldn't even bother to send an email out and trust people to keep it quiet... So far everything that's been leaked is about things that are already know like FUD...
I just have to wonder what other secrets are lurking in Mordor...
Stop whining about MS.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If enough people start using other products, perhaps Microsoft will take notice and start building things that people actually want. It's called market tendencies folks...not exactly rocket science.
More power to MS!! (Score:2, Funny)
This is a bigger issue than you think (Score:2, Insightful)
lather...rinse.. repeat... (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish once and for all that the general public and the US Court would realise that this is just another day at MS, and that we likely won't see the end of this type of MS BS til they actually implement either a breakup, or some other REAL sanctions.
If they won't play nicely with the other children, take away their toys. That's what parents do with spoiled children (at least they did when i was growing up).
RealOne Player is actually worse, IMO. (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I installed RealOne a few weeks back and desipte unckeck a huge list of files it wanted to take over, I still grabbed quite a few. I attempted to reassociate them with Media Player and other programs, and guess what happened...
Next time I opened RealOne player, it popped up some "File Associations Agent" which said: "Another program or programs have attempted to associate RealOne Player-assoicated files with themselves. RealOne Player has re-associated all files."
WTF???
Nowhere did I choose to have these files associated with RealOne Player, nor did I choose any "maintain file associations" button. Not to mention, you can't even get rid of the resident aspects of RealOne Player. Just about every time I boot my computer (which, admittedly, is very rarely) I get some "RealOne Player Critical Notification" box that pops up. As far as I can tell, the best you can do is make it only show up "A few times a month"--there is no "GO AWAY YOU FSCKING ANNOYING POP-UP WINDOW!!!" option that I could find.
So, yeah. As evil as MS may possibly be, I don't feel bad for RealPlayer on this one. =P
-Jayde
Re:RealOne Player is actually worse, IMO. (Score:2)
http://proforma.real.com/real/player/blackjack.ht
IE needs to learn to take "no" for an answer (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't tried it, but IE must only stop asking if you finally say "Yes."
Re:IE needs to learn to take "no" for an answer (Score:2, Informative)
Your OEM screwed up the install. Your user security database is most likely hosed; other symptoms will be passwords not being remembered in Outlook Express.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact fix. But I had to do it on my Gateway system when it arrived at work. It's in the MS knowledge base though - search for "outlook express" "user authentication", and you should find something about it.
When I installed my own copy of Windows XP (beta, full release, whatever), it didn't have this issue. Makes you wonder what the software Gateway preloaded is doing with the system.
Simon
Re:IE needs to learn to take "no" for an answer (Score:2)
And anyone have any idea why Activesync contacts Microsoft.com every time I synch my PDA?
criminal (Score:2, Insightful)
This just emphasizes how hard Open Source companies like Linux and RealMedia are going to have to work to overcome the scourge that is Micro$oft. We have made great strides, and Linux and BSD combined now account for a full 1% of home computers (including OS X and discounting dual booting and versions of Windows pre-2k). These are numbers to be proud of, but still M$ treats the "Hacker" (not a bad term!) community as an insignificant force.
If you ask me, it's dirty tricks like these, trying to make their own proprietary mp3 format the standard, that indicate that they are actually afraid of Linux and Open Source. We have them on the run, now let's go in for the kill.
Perhaps you meant 10%? (Score:2)
Re:criminal (Score:2)
Since when is Real Media an open source company? Real is a proprietary technology (and a pretty crappy one too) and Real Media is just another proprietary software maker. They're not any better than Microsoft.
Its not all bad (Score:2, Insightful)
.
Further bad testimony from Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsofties testifying poorly for the company. Yesterday, Microsoft's Will Poole, vice president in charge of the company's Windows New Media Platform division, conceded that he couldn't think of anything Microsoft had done with its audio and video capabilities to address a trial court's April 2000 findings against the company.
The states also brought out an email from a different Microsoft employee, Kurt Buecheler, who wrote that when Microsoft went to distribute market development money to computer manufacturers, "a key criteria will be shipping Windows Media Player."
Today, when the states lawyer enquired as to why IE6 played music files with WMP technology even if the user had selected RealPlayer as their default, Microsoft executive Linda Averett said Microsoft could use RealNetworks software to play music in Internet Explorer, but chooses not to.
"The reason it is not replaceable is that Microsoft does not allow it to be replaceable, correct?" Schmidtlein (dissenting states attorney) asked.
"Correct, it is an integrated feature," Averett testified.
She also testified about the complaint by RealNetworks that the XP search program couldn't find RealNetworks files. She claimed it was a mistake that had been fixed two weeks ago. This would make it a month after states' top lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, showed the search problem during opening arguments as evidence of Microsoft's wrongdoing.
Yesterday's testimony: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-900213.html [com.com]r osoft-Antitrust.html [nytimes.com]
Today's testimony: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Mic
Put up or shut up. (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks for your cooperation
Re:Put up or shut up. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you cannot comprehend a world where something like Microsoft can hunt down and make use of ways to use some people's need or desire to run Windows, to strike bargains where EVERYONE is required to pay for and get Windows like it or not... even to the extent where, as in the Reg's report, Macintosh seats in the edu market are required to pay for Windows Upgrades they cannot even run, then how about you shut up?
I mean, it's like you're talking about a free market or something.
When a Microsoft can say, "Oh, you have to buy copies of our stuff for EVERYTHING, in fact every person who sets foot on campus, including dogs and pigeons" and get away with it because the 70%-90% of Windows seats MUST be served...
When those seats MUST get current Windows OSes because Microsoft bundles stuff with the OS and makes it compulsory to make use of other aspects of the Windows environment, whether that be IMing or a new media codec or web pages in the wild that require the version of IE only bundled with the system...
Then you don't have a free market anyway, so enough with your 'just choooooose something else'. It won't work. Without a free market choice is vanity. Trust me on this, I've exercised the vanity of choosing Macs for _years_ and look where MS is now! Like I hurt them. Sheesh.
Operating Systems.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Allright, so I'm reading through the Chapter 4: Processes section (brushing up on my basic threads and synchronization concepts) of the Silberschatz/Galvin "Operating Systems Concepts" (you know, the dinosaur book) and it hits me. Fundamentally, all this garbage MS bundles in its "OS" is extraneous to an operating system. Looking through the book, there's no chapter on Media Players, no chapter on Web Browsers, no chapter on personal information managers....no chapter on WINDOW MANAGERS!!! These things are not part of the OS proper.
Has anyone at any point in these hearings ever offered up a working defenition of a computer operating system? Don't you think that would go a long way toward determining exactly what should and shouldn't be "part of" an operating system? It seems to me like everyone involved is working backward by looking at individual, extraneous components and querying whether it is or isn't "part of" the OS. Shouldn't they really figure out what an OS is and then look at the components to see if they belong?
Truly, the book provides a very basic, somewhat low level, and very academic view of operating systems (basically the OS facilitates IO, Storage Management, Process Management, Security and possibly Networking/Distributed Computing in using a given collection of hardware). I would grant that at this point having some kind of GUI environment for an OS is pretty much a requirement in order to make a machine "useable" by an appreciable number of people. But after that how much further do you have to go?
It seems to me that looking at things from this perspective would make it abundantly clear to everyone involved that MS has gone way beyond the bounds of what an OS is in their Windows product. It would also probably provide obvious deliniation points for breaking up the business (for instance there is no good reason for the window manager to be integrated with the underlying graphics routines). It would also highlight just how spurious all of MS's arguments are in regards to how breaking things up would ruin MS Windows, by highlighting either that MS has no clue about what an OS actually is and their code is incredibly flawed as a result, OR (more likely) MS has gone to great lengths to obscure what an OS actually is to further their own ends at the expense of the user and other application developers.
Admittedly it is not as all cut and dried in practice as it is in acedamia, but I do believe that attempting to establish the basic notion of what an OS is would further illuminate the problems presented by MS's current approach to its "operating system" in relation to the States' (and our) concerns in this case.
See I knew paying attention in class (or at least keeping the books I was supposed to have read for class) would pay off some day....
MS Media Player not bad, but no excuse (Score:2)
MS Media player is vastly superior to Real and Apple players. However, in terms of sound, its not nearly as good as WinAmp or FreeAmp. MS Media Player has managed not to become as bloated as Apple's and Real's products, but its still bloated. What's the point of those large buttons on the left side of it? MS should've stuck with the classic format.
Anyways, it isn't as good as WinAmp for music, and isn't as good as DivXPlaya for video.
Despite Media Player being good, that doesn't justify MS' abuses of its OS position to force people to use Win Media Player. People and OEM's should have the choice about what software the OS uses to play media file, NOT MS.
Which is worse...MS or Real?? (Score:2)
Don't rely on the news stories... (Score:2)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/nonset
I've noticed a lot of the reporting has been pretty bizarre, taking points out of context and so forth. When you actually read the full testimony you see it within the context. The lawyers are often trying to press a point, and it may take them 10 questions to lead into it. Often the witness may seem to be playing dumb, but really it's because they have to be very careful and answer tightly worded questions with pertinent answers. Generally a witness is only brought in to testify on a very specific subset of information, and questions outside of those bounds are not allowed. It's a cat & mouse game because the lawyers are always trying to set up the witness, and I find it quite fun to watch.
I still have trouble (Score:2)
Of course, that may be a Quicktime trick but stil..
Another co-mingle ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I was trying to set up web-cams with my bro-in-law and started with MSN Messenger. After signing up for a Passport (guess I sold my soul...), I then signed in, but was prevented from broadcasting my Webcam. Why ? Because I run Win2k.
MSN Messenger informed me that in order for it (a stand-alone application, one would think...) to work with a Webcam I had to upgrade to XP.
So we just used Yahoo instead.
However, the more I think about it, the more it annoyed me...to get an application to work I have to upgrade the OS, when other vendors are perfectly able to provide the same features without the upgrade ? I suppose it's what they call great marketing...
Media player replacement... (Score:2)
I heard there's a really cool media player out of Hungary or something, that comes with neat extra programs too. Perhaps we should bundle that with Windows instead.
Re:RealPlayer and Quicktime are AWFUL audio plugin (Score:2)
And speaking of the Windows Media Player, I don't see where your complaint is coming from. Simply upgrade the player at the Windows Update site [microsoft.com]. If you upgrade IE you also get offered a chance to update your Windows Media Player. It is really not that hard.
The big problem with doing it this way is that you will have to fix the associations that Microsoft so thoughtfully broke for you afterwards...
Re:Stupid Employees! Bad! Bad! (Score:2)
Actually, I thought this showed that some of their executives actually are honest enough to tell the truth when under oath. If the employees were stupid, they would be trying to lie while they are up on the stand.
What I think this does show is how unprepared M$'s lawyers are for some of these witnesses. The lawyers should have spent a lot of time prepping the witnesses; they should have expected these questions and coached the witnesses on how to answer truthfully without hurting the case.
Re:This just in: power corrupts (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, usually [sciencedaily.com].
Re:And? So? (Score:2)
In other words, if they were not abusing their monopoly it would be okay. But they are. I thought most people would have worked this much out by now.
TWW