EU Says Microsoft's Abuses Are Ongoing 561
levell writes "Although the legal difficulties Microsoft was having in the US seem to be drawing to a close, it's not yet over in the EU. In this story, the BBC reports that the EU says it is still abusing its monopoly with Windows Media Player, and perhaps more interestingly from a Linux point of view, also in the low-end server market. The story is also being covered on CNN, Ananova, Reuters, etc." The EU's press release is informative.
about time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:about time (Score:5, Funny)
its more like watching the European System in Bullet Time (TM)
Issues at stake in EU vs Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
there are two different issues here, which got intermingled with the usual religious war.
Issue # 1: Can the European Commission act as it is doing?
Reply: yes, simply because the EC Treaty explicitely empowers it to do so, and naturally, also provides remedies to challenge any Commission decision (taking the case to the European Court of Justice). It can levy a substantial fine too. End of story-no further soul searching required on this branch.
Issue # 2: Is it (ethically, financially, politic
Re:about time (Score:5, Informative)
EU commissioners usually are well known politicians in their country of origin but relatively unknown by Europeans in general. They aren't elected but nominated by their national governments. They are usually relatively incorruptible (compared to corruption in European countries, which is low on a worldwide scale). On the whole EU commissioners are excellent representatives of the people's interests.
People often laugh or get annoyed at the "bureaucracy" in Brussels. Just like at the level of the US Federal govt it is often necessary to put the smallest of details into writing to accomodate minority interests and to be fair to all in as many cases as possible. If you review EU proposed legislation over the decades you can see that they have created extremely beneficial legislation.
Re:about time (Score:3, Informative)
Your ideal voting system sounds like the French presidential elections, yeah it would give smaller candidates a platform and a lot of votes and then in the finals it would add issues that were important in the initial elections to
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Interesting)
They need to be split, and now. Just my opinion...
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Informative)
Media format and constitutional rights (Score:5, Insightful)
No chance of any competition in that model. Ever.
A big danger is DRM being added into the chain, then Microsoft would have 100% say over who makes files, who reads files, when and where they can read files, and who can make programs that read, write or modify files. And just to make the lock-in complete, 100% control over determining the life span of the file format. No more 100 year old archives.
If the EU starts down that path by using encumbered file formats, it steps on the rights of countries where access to government information is a constitutional right. Sweden and Finland are two such countries where information has been open by default as part of the constitution. There may be other countries, but even countries with weaker freedom of information need to use open formats.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it any different than Red Hat bundling Mozilla and mplayer with their distro?
There are other companies trying to make money from media players, eg Apple, Real
Microsoft is denying them this opportunity by bundling their own software with the OS. Punters are less likely to go and buy from Apple or Real.
Competition is good. This is bad.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody will use open source audio formats since copy protection and DRM would bypassed.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:3, Insightful)
BS. Microsoft has been found guilty in a court of law of uncompetitive behaviour. Like any sensible business they do not like competition, and they work damn hard to block out competition. But because they have a dominant market share there is a necessary requirement for them to be kept in check.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:3, Insightful)
The market would have taken care of itself
The market can only take care of itself if it's not rigged.
If you cross-subsidise products that gives you an unfair advantage and destroys the free market in that sector. Then market forces cease to work well.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Insightful)
When pimply-faced teenagers assert that they can download MP3s because "the law is wrong", they face a barrage of righteous indignation from those who say they have a moral obligation to follow the law as it is written.
When a giant multinational corporation continues to use its monopoly status to manipulate the market because "the law is wrong", we're all just supposed to let it slide.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Informative)
The government is simply an extension of the people. Giving more power to the people seems like the way it should be.
You seem to either forego much of the true history of things concerning the Standard Oil case, or simpy do not understand why it was done, and why MS is similarly being looked at. The Gulf inroads were minor on comparison, and Standard was well on it's way to "overcoming" those pesky guys anyway. Standard became more powerful than the government and the people were completely dependent upon them. This was bad
Monopolies have an ever increasing amount of leverage to maintain those monopolies, which is bad. You see, Linux may very well have been much much further into the market if it wasn't for these practices, which has nothing to do with the "best tool for the job" rising to the top. We at
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:3, Interesting)
But that could easily be 10 years down the road. Meanwhile, MS will have stamped Real Networks and many other perceived threats out of existence, trampling on the livelihoods of thousands of people who are trying to find markets for innovative new products. All this time they will be bullying OEMs into bundling their high-priced bloatware with all their systems, forestalling the day that we can claim to have anything resembling a free market
Not Governement Expansion. (Score:5, Interesting)
The exercise of pre existing power does not represent an expansion of government power.
The law is wrong. It should be changed.
No, anti-competitive practices are wrong. They put people out of business - that's means people lose jobs and have their lives fucked around. Anti-competitive practices are also designed to bring more than fair market value for goods and services. In the end, everyone pays for them. If a free market is good, then what Microsfoft does is very bad. Preventing this kind of racketeering is as good a government exercise as the prevention of murder or stock fraud. Yes, economic upheaval can be fatal.
Like you, I have my doubts about the way government regualtion plays out. In the case of phone and electric service, we are moving toward unregulated but protected monopolies, the very worst case. In automobiles, we have government protection and even cash bailouts. In steel, there's essentially a monopoly poorly protected against forgein makers. In software, we have the spectical of government violating all purchasing sense and sole sourcing six years worth of purchasing to some of the worst software available.
The intent, especially in the Microsoft case, is correct. Don't confuse intent with the way Anti-trust laws are not followed through perverted.
Doing nothing does just that and that might be fatal for the US computer industry. The glass making industry never gained significant competion in the US, did it? It took the invention of a whole new light material, plastic, and a shipping revolution to bring competition to bottle making. If Microsoft is uninhibited, they might be might be able to pull off Paladium, which would end all software and hardware competition on just about all platforms. It is by no means certian that chip makers will be able to resist Paladium in the commodity market. The alternatives are expensive custom hardware from makers like Sun, worth it to companies but not individuals. The xbox is a peek into Microsfoft's dream world. The implications for all software and hardware makers are obvious.
Re:Not Governement Expansion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell us dunces what powers the government has given itself over the course of the MS trial. The government has brought charges to companies liek this before. It has also fined companies, broken up companies, and regulated their actions before. None of these are new.
If I make a better product, how is that anti-competitive
That's not what people are complaining about. MS Put out a product good enough to obtain a monopoly. Which is fine. Then they saw an emergin market where people were making money (Netscape used to sell web browsers). MS then bought a browser from a nother company, turned it into IE, and gave it away for free for the express purpose of driving Netscape out of the market. To help speed up the process, it was made into an essential part of the OS with Windows 98 (I believe 95a even). Think about that. To uninstall the browser you would have to break the OS. They then forced OEMs, using their legaly obtained monopoly position, to shut out competitors, AOL and Netscape pre-installed or even icons on the desktop. You would have to be a complete, freaking, idiot to think that the first versions of IE were better. But the majority of consumers just use whatever is there already, not realising there is a choice. By the time IE was good enough to compete on technical merit, MS had run Netscape out of the browser market. (I know they still make browsers, but IE has 90%+ market penetration). The illegal tactics are the leveraging of the desktop OS monopoly to prevent OEMs from distributing competing products (implemented by non-uniform licensing), and selling a product in a separate market at a loss, to drive out competition (use profits from the OS market to sustain distributing IE at a loss in the browser market). They are doing the same thing with the media player, AFTER being convicted of their original anti-competitive behavior.
You say that the intent of the government is correct in this case, and that somehow justifies the use of force.I know its cliche to say this, but Commumism had a good intent too. Intent never justifies force, except in self-defense, and I don't think that MS was threatening to attack the US
MS is attacking consumers, by artificially driving out competition and keeping prices artificially high. The Justice Department and State Attorneys General act in defense of the consumers. Get a clue.
Re:Not Governement Expansion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft didn't enable MSFT-ONLY, PROPRIETARY codecs, their bundling of a media player would be a non issue. The same applies to IE and IE-only tags. I guess this doesn't matter to people who are in love with Windows XP.
You can't compare free software to jailware. Redhat doesn't add proprietary codecs to Xine, and then roll it out to millions of people in it's up2date service.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its perverted thinking to claim that you deserve to have no competition from bigger companies
Fine. Let Microsoft sell the media player to you as an addon at the market price.
Thing is they won't because they're making a loss on the WMP (and everything except the OS and Office) so that no-one else can gain a foothold in the market.
But they are. (Score:3, Informative)
Go to www.compaq.com
This will redirect you to h18000.www1.hp.com
Click on the Business Desktops link
Click on the "hp Compaq Business Desktop d500 series"
Read the blurb that says "Compaq Evo D500 Series PCs continue to redefine industry-leading value with the latest technologies and updated processor speeds. Other D500 Series features include:"
Sucks to be you.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you honestly tell me that if it was your company making the os and you also made a media app that you wouldn't add it to your os as well??? I highly doubt it.
No doubting the business sense. But in the long term it hurts consumers by creating a monopoly situation. In this case in the DRM field.
As regards linux, even if it were the case that Mandrake, RedHat, SuSE were producing their own player and not including Real, Real could always put together their own linux distro.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but feel we've been here a million times before, but here goes for the 1,000,001st...
MS has - or at least was judged at the time of the US court case to have - a monopoly on the OS market. It is illegal to exploit a monopoly in one market to gain one in another, for reasons which I hope are obvious. Thus MS cannot simply add applications into Windows. Doing so would give them an unfair advantage over their competitors, and the whole purpose of consumer capitalism - to let competition drive up living standards - would be defeated.
Nonetheless, not only did MS break the law and incorporate new applications into their monopoly OS, they made it impossible to uninstall them. A more flagrant violation of both the letter and the spirit of the anti-trust laws is hard to imagine.
So yes, if I made an OS and a media app I would want to bundle the two together. But if I had a monopoly in either market, it would be illegal for me to actually do so; and we should all be glad of that.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's different because Red Hat doesn't have a 90% or higher share of any market. Under United States, and presumably European Union, anti-trust laws the rules change when a company achieves a certain (unspecified) level of market dominance.
I remember thinking during the Microsoft anti-trust trial that Gates, Balmer, etc. never really accepted this fact. They just couldn't understand that actions that were perfectly lega
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Insightful)
Questions like this are representative of the naivete of most computer users. The difference between Red Hat and Microsoft: Red Hat bundles software to compete--to surive--, whereas Microsoft bundles software to kill.
In an ecosystem of healthy competition, bundled software is a means of adding value (it sort of like women putting on makeup: "Hey, look at me! I'm prettier, now!"). However, when one company has managed to gain 90+% market share, the ecosystem has died, and there is no longer a notion of adding value, when there is nothing left to compare it to. There is no upstart company that can hope to compete, when there isn't even room to take root.
You simply don't understand the scale of Microsoft. Their market share on desktop computers is frightening. Even Sun, I bet, makes more money off of Java developers developing on Windows than they do on Solaris, Mac OS, and Linux-based developers combined. I have read that Microsoft's pocket change is sufficient to buy entire other industries, such as the airlines (all of the airlines), and still have plenty of money left over.
Microsoft is the figurative grey goo of the software industry, where they consume to the point of gluttony leaving a wasteland behind them. Their goals are ultimately destructive, and they have no qualms about killing companies to advance their own dominance. In no way, is Microsoft anyone's friend.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bundled microsoft software tried to force you to use their codecs and their 'standards' which are not interoperable. Their 'free' programs cost a lot more than nothing in the long run because they lock you into their world. Those free tools from competitors are often interoperable. (Realplayer is an exception, I use realplayer as often as I use WMP, which is 'never.') You can get the source to OpenOffice and make your own program that reads and writes the format.
We're not complaining about the bundling itself, we're complaining about the fact that the bundling forces hordes of unknowing users to be locked into a microsoft world. If MSFT's free tools worked with open standards, there would be no complaints.
This is why MSFT's 'radio' argument is invalid. They said that nobody claimed that auto manufacturers were uncompetitive because they 'bundled' a certain type of radio with their products, so why is MSFT being hounded? The answer of course is that a bundled Ford radio does not force you to listen only to radio stations that paid for a 'Ford FM Radio Transmitter license'.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, I was just using that as an example.
Of what? You've come up with a scenario with a snide 'I doubt it' response, without even bothering to check your facts.
The point being that many of the arguements that people use against Microsoft could also apply to some of the Linux distributions.
Just goes to show you don't understand the argument beyond the superficial level. Redhat/Mandrake/whoever are not cross-subsidising development of RealPlayer, thereby rigging the free market.
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:3, Insightful)
Try factoring in the fact that when you buy your Ford, with your 'cheap radio' you can only listen to Ford radio stations.
-Nex
Re:Why wasn't MS split? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of it like this. I am a producer of TV's and 95% of the world use my TV. Now there are tons of companies out there that would love to offer VCR's, DVD players, digital recorders, sound systems, etc. However, I keep the internals of the TV secret so that my other sub-divisions (which happen to make these products) can have a better advantage in the market place. I make all my money from selling these TV's so I give away a VCR with each TV purchase. I am losing money on the development and distribution of those VCR's, however, I just pass along that expense to my TV division and all is well. I just killed off the competition and have full control over the market. In capitalism, it is the market that is supposed to control things and not one dominant monopoly in that market. This is the problem with MS and it is sad more people do not see it. There are a bunch of Libertarians screeming for the government to stay out of it because the market will fix itself. While I am not a Libertarian, I do agree that less government is often a better government. Howver, in the case of MS, the market cannot fix itself. MS has too much of a stronhold on the entire market and are able to control all the protocols, API's, multimedia and document formats. With that kind of control there cannot be captialism. No other player is allowed to even try to compete.
Trying to compare Open Source/Free Software with MS is just silly. Open Source is well, OPEN. ANYONE can use it to compete and offer different/better offerings. No one is forced to use any one Open Source product. NO Open Source product I know of has hidden API's, closed protocols and document formats to stop others from competing or interacting with it. Red Hat includes thousands of apps with their OS and NONE of them are required. You can install Mozilla, Galeon, MozillaPhoenix, Opera, Konq, Netscape, lynx, links, elinks, w3m, etc. With MS, IE is no longer a stand alone product and is incorporated into the OS. They used their dominant desktop OS position to get their browser to the dominant position. They are now doing this with their media player by embedding it into longhorn. This means that MS can make proprietary changes to HTML (which they have) and now you are locked out of that content UNLESS you buy their OS. They are now trying to do this with multimedia. Soon, to watch or listen to any media you will be required to give MS money by purchasing their products. If MS stuck to standards and published ALL of their protocols, document formats, etc they would not be in court for being a monopoly. Most people do not care about the size of MS, they care about the amount of control that MS has grabbed and are continuing to grab. A monopoly is devistating to a society based on captialism, and it saddens me to see how many Americans just don't give a sh*t. I hope the EU will give MS a kick in the *ss unlike the slap on the wrist the corrupted US government gave them. If MS is not stopped in some way, then in about 10 years time, you will be required to pay MS in one form or another to have ANY interaction with a computer system.
It would be funny (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It would be funny (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It would be funny (Score:5, Funny)
Stop the presses! (Score:4, Funny)
Coalition building (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Coalition building (Score:5, Funny)
Oh boy is this one going to get modded down.
Obligatory pro-Apple comment (Score:4, Funny)
Do you know what the best thing about OS X is? It has all the features that Windows has, including a built in browser and media player, but it's not considered to be anticompetive! Why? Because it doesn't have as much market share, and Apple is the "little guy"!! Yay! Yay! Yay! GO APPLE!
It has all the features that Windows has (Score:5, Informative)
I knew there was a reason I hadn't bought one
What are the follow-up actions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Big freaking deal
They'll just shrug, pay the fine, and continue as before. Or will the EU undertake further actions against MS, if they persist in these practices even after paying the fines?
Re:What are the follow-up actions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What are the follow-up actions? (Score:5, Informative)
If Microsoft are found guilty, penalize, and then perisist, they may well be prohibited from trading in Europe completely. The EU has the authorization to demand a complete blockade of a given company's products from all member nations, and has the power to restrict trading to any nation that does trade with them.
(The US got nervous with EU privacy laws, for this reason, as the EU made it very clear they'd embargo any nation that bought or sold personal information without strict privacy protections being in place. I think that actually ended up in a small trade-war, for a while.)
it is the only tax they pay (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't use the line "but we pay X in tax to the govt., we're good for the local economies"
rather than "we cost US jobs by having our products packaged in Mexico for a pittance and we pay as little tax as possible"
Instead you've got the "Gates Institute" and free condoms for Indians, not much of a payoff.
They should have learned the McDonalds way and properly invested in grass roots so that people think they are cool
Before people say "what can they do" (Score:5, Insightful)
So how about a fine equal to the sales over the period of the infringement. And restrictions on the sale of MS products.
And the best bit is that the EU actually has a spine here as its a great chance to piss of a US company, which lets face it they are hardly going to resist.
Re:Before people say "what can they do" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Um... check your facts. (Score:3, Interesting)
Tax rates in the EU are not 'very high'--in fact, they are in line with the rest of the world. It's just the base US tax rate is comparitively low. When you look at the taxes being raised by the destitute states to make up for the shortfall in revenue caused by the Administration's foolish and useless economic policies, I'm sure tax rates in places like California, New York and Massachusetts come very close to those which an EU citizen would pay. A
Re:Um... check your facts. (Score:3, Informative)
Tax rates in the EU are a lot higher than in the US. The total tax burden in most EU countries is also much higher. In the US the various levels of govenment (i.e. everything from federal to local), spend about 30% of GDP. In the EU it is typically somewhere between 40% and 50%. You can see the latest OECD figures here [oecd.org].
Unemployment is also not 'very high', as you suggest.
But is is consistently much higher than the US. Even at its peak the unemployment rate in
It would do good everywhere. (Score:5, Interesting)
That one is good punishment. Because they abused their low end desktop monopoly, force them to buy their competitor's media players and include them all without charge. Ogg Vorbis could set a reasonable price for prcompiled binarys, I'm sure. Everyone but Microsoft would win.
More than that, I like their reesoning about leveraging. It was as simple to prove as asking people buying low end servers for their low end desktops if "interoperability" and secret interfaces made a difference in their purchasing. Bingo, nothing meritorius there, just a bunch of crap they won't share and a dominant market position.
The proposed solution, to force M$ to open up their interfaces is great stuff. Less time would have to be dedicated to deciphering their crap. I wonder if they can force NTFS open too, after all the inability to write to the file system is a hinderence.
M$ may try to wriggle out of this by making EU only software that plays nice, but they won't get far. They can not escape the black eye solid reasoning is giving them. Solid reasoning from impartial parties and published with all the resources of a large govenment.
It's just more reason to ditch M$ all together. Who needs a low end desktop anyway? That would be the best thing of all.
Re:Before people say "what can they do" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before people say "what can they do" (Score:3, Informative)
James
Go EU! (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way the beast can be stopped is a change in technology, such as the way IBM was finally put down (thanks to a creature of their own development, no less).
It isn't Microsoft that's initially to blame for this monoculture, it's the massive numbers of PHB's who subscribe to the 'Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft' (or IBM in the old days) mentality that permeates IT purchasing.
Re:Go EU! (Score:3, Insightful)
Curious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Curious (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory, how much control does the EU have over Microsoft?
If they want to trade in the EU you have to observe EU (and member states') laws. Simple as that. If you're guilty of something you'll have to pay the fine, then adjust your working practices so you come into line.
Might this mean Windows EU edition?
The EU's press release is informative. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's vague and makes a few general allegations, but provides not even a hint of specifics or proof.
An overwhelming majority of customers responding to this market enquiry highlighted that Microsoft's non-disclosure of interface information - necessary for competing servers to properly "talk" with Windows PCs and servers - did indeed artificially alter their choice in favour of Microsoft's server products.
To "talk" with windows PCs? Huh? You mean SMB? ODBC? DCOM? Oh wait, those are all known.
They must be talking about ActiveDirectory, right? That's more of a nice new feature than a necessity for business. Will it be the case that every new feature MSFT comes up with must be given away to all?
The Media Player thing is stupid too. It's already "uncoupled" from the OS. You need not install or use it, they even made a special little control panel applet to "uninstall" it. If someone made a better media player, I'd be using it right now.
If the EU wanted to actually make a difference, and not headlines, they'd push linux in their own governments. THEY set the standard everyone follows. People use excel, word and access because that's what the federales use.
Re:The EU's press release is informative. (Score:3, Interesting)
known != unencumbered (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The EU's press release is informative. (Score:3, Insightful)
SMB is NOT know. It has been painstakenly reverse enginerred by a group of developers. Every new version that comes out MS tweaks and makes it incompatible in some way. So the ONLY reason any non-ms OS can "talk" to an MS network is because of the hard work by dedicated programmers and NOT because of MS. MS continually tries to STOP any non-ms software from working within an ms environment, which goes well beyond c
Microsoft may... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone actually use any of the mentioned players? (Score:3, Informative)
Mplayer for linux of course comes with all the codecs but windows users gotta install the fucking players with all their spyware and bloat.
But I then imidiatly install someting like Bsplayer (fast opening from linux shares) or Media player classic (good fullscreen controls and no osd crap). I think all of the three mentioned players are worse then crap, the orginal windows media player was okay but lately they all seem to go out of their way to obfuscate the simple playing of video files.
I had hopes for the Helix project from realmedia, hopes that you now could simply get the codecs. This however doesn't seem to have happened.
Am I the only one who finds it slightly odd that these companies attempt to charge money twice? Once to the encoder (content creator) and once more for the player (consumer)? In the real world you only get to charge once for a product. Imagine that Shell said Ford had to have a license to use their fuel. Or that Bridgestone came to youre house for payment for the tires that came with youre car.
Oh well, serves me right for still having my main machine run windows I suppose. (everything else is linux but I love my games to much)
Less talk, ... (Score:3, Interesting)
WMP? (Score:5, Funny)
HH
--
So they ship a mediaplayer... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can use mozilla as my (default) browser if I want to, or play mpgs per default with quicktime. If red hat had a monopoly-like market share, then shipping a free media player (the KmovieKplayer 9) would be monopoly abuse because it would limit sales of 3rd party media players?
And if microsoft would have media player on a separate download/cd people would buy Real's player? Even if microsoft would give it away? Or can't they give it away because that too is monopoly abuse? Is the "abuse" from microsoft really caused to any major extent by "features" in their products? Don't think so...
Did that sound pro m$? I better put the flameproof suit on.
simple mind. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if your code is properly modularized there's not problem removing a browser a media player a GUI or any other component. The problem is that M$ has spagetti codeded their dinky browser so their computers won't even boot without one. I'd say that limits the usefulness of the OS. People who would like to use it as a server platform with they could turn off most of these "features" aka services in the free world.
I can use mozilla as my (default) browser if I want to, or play mpgs per default with quicktime.
That's very hard to do and Microsoft takes every chance to undo your preference. I know, I tried with Windows 2000. I wanted to look at a CD with Portable Net Graphics and AVI movies on it. IE flunked both, Mozilla worked flawlessly. IE did not make Quicktime it's prefered viewer and WMP would not display PNG of AVI. That's pathetic because AVI is M$ format closely related to WMP formats and PNG is an openly published format. Mozilla was not the default browser and keeping it up to date is like hell on an M$ box. Just getting Mozilla requires a broadband connection, and knowledge you are unlikely to have in the Windoze world.
If red hat had a monopoly-like market share, then shipping a free media player (the KmovieKplayer 9) would be monopoly abuse because it would limit sales of 3rd party media players?
No, Red Hat does not have a dominant market position and Red Hat can not prevent others from using Kmovieplayer or any other free software anyway they would like. Microsoft has both of these.
if microsoft would have media player on a separate download/cd people would buy Real's player?
Real used to have a dominant makret position.
Did that sound pro m$?
No, just ignorant. A typical Astroturf troll at worst.
I better put the flameproof suit on.
Don't bother.
Re:simple mind. (Score:4, Insightful)
IE CAN be removed. The Rendering engine can't because it is used BY the OS for many things. Including showing you the contents of your HD (Gee just like KDE!) and whowing you your help files. That is true componetised, object oriented design.
But most people when demanding that "IE" be removed think that the GUI "IE" and the HTML rendering engine are the same thing and want BOTH gone. That is NOT possible.
Now who sounds ignorant? (Hey you started the name calling)
As for real, if their player had not been such an ad spam piece of crap they might have not lost their "position". It's the quality and abusiveness of their product that killed them, just like 4.0 version of the Netscape browser killed Netscape oh so many years ago.
Too many people are quick to blame "monopoly" for what is more obviously a case of Shitty Vs Not As Shitty... Not as shitty wins.
I'll take WMP 9 over QT and Real any day because of its quality. I also use WMP to view DivX files as well as the DivX player is also a giant piece of crap. But at least DivX plays nice with the windows media system and allows you to use ANY player to play DivX media files. Unlike QT and Real which try to lock you into a single player (Theirs, suprise, suprise)
I have all three installed so I can see any media I DL, but the QT player and the real player are both POS and I hate having to use them because of their terrible design and abusiveness.
Companies like real put themselves out of buisness with their crap. Not the other way around. THey could have had their own player AND integrated into the windows media system AND still had their own streaming server product. But NO, they had to try to take it all themselves, well as a user, I say "fuck 'em".
Re:what? (Score:3, Informative)
Size of the fine... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Size of the fine... (Score:3, Interesting)
WMP file formats (Score:3, Interesting)
The only anti-competitive Microsoft action that is relevant to this is keeping secret the file and streaming formats used by Media Player
I don't believe the EU really wants those opened, as this would hurt DRM, which the EU is generally sympathetic to.
There is nothing wrong with including a media player in an operating system, any more than including a file browser, or a set of printer drivers. If they were operating a "Windows ain't done till RealPlayer won't run" policy that would be different, but I've not heard that alleged.
Microsoft's real offenses are, as ever, in the fields of dishonest marketing FUD and putting pressure on third parties to disfavour competitors. Most of which is quite likely to be technically legal, at least to the extent that can be proved.
I fear this move is motivated by a general US-bashing sentiment rather than any sincere grievance. While it is possible that Free Software could benefit as a side effect of a transatlantic trade war, the costs would probably outweigh the benefit.
It's about the Users (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft bundles things like IE and WMP so users have a browser and media player when they install their own OS. Taking them out is not the solution, since many will be left without such things. Forcing the company to stick competitors products in their own product is not necessarily the way to go, but is perhaps a solution to all the bitching and moaning going on.
Should KDE be forced to remove Konquerer or its various KDE-installed media players? Sure, there's other choices outside the KDE RPMs (or whatever distribution method you use), but people have a choice of OSes, too - don't install it and install linux instead.
This whole thing has gotten out of hand, IMO. I guess if a company is successful, they obviously must be doing something illegal, huh?
Re:It's about the Users (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also what you can't remove (Score:5, Insightful)
A linux distro may come with only one browser or media player, but no one commercial distro has been labeled a desktop monopoly. Being a monopoly changes the rules.
Re:It's about the Users (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism *requires* that consumers make informed choices. If they don't, the entire system of people being rewarded for making the best and most effecient stuff collapses on its ass - the only people who actually get rewarded are those who sink the most money into advertising, placement, or whatever, which transforms "the rich get richer" from
Would we miss them if they were to die today? (Score:3, Informative)
Frankly, this is bull. You want facts?
Read http://microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml
What I think users expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... here is my take...
Users like one-stop shopping. You buy a computer, you can surf the web, you can listen to music, you can play games, you can do all that stuff without having to first hook up to the Internet to download even *more* stuff or buy even *more* stuff to make it work like you expect that it should.
Few things I have ever seen infuriate a customer more than buying something and then realizing that what they bought was incomplete and that they have to get/buy even more stuff to make it do what they want.
The inclusion of IE in Windows was a big hullabaloo. At the time it was introduced, it was very much inferior to the other offerings out there, but did allow the user to browse the web. So, Microsoft saw that a browser with extentions could replace the file/system viewer Explorer so they merged the two things - far easier to have one thing that does both than have two development teams doing basically the same things maintaining two seperate code bases. That's why IE became integral to the OS - because it was also the viewer for everything from the file system to the control panel to a file viewer. Removing IE would remove the capability to do any of that.
Having IE bundled didn't prevent you from loading any other browser that was your favorite, but it did offer (some say) superior Internet Browser features to others at the time so users felt little reason to use anything else. It was good enough for users, they didn't have to get/buy more software to make their pooter work so they used it. Very simple.
Same with MediaPlayer. Users expect to be able to listen to music or play videos on their computer now from the instant they plug it into the wall. Microsoft delivers a way for them to do it. They improve it, and now it is "good enough" for most folks and they don't have to get/buy something extra to have this functionality. Very simple.
Personally, I wouldn't use/buy ANY computer that didn't come bundled with some form of web browser and a media player of some sort. Very frequently, no matter the OS I choose, the one that comes bundled is good enough to do exactly what I want to do (I'm not an audiophile and I don't have special web browsing needs like special sites that are browser specific. I do like WinAMP better than MediaPlayer though so I tend to install it on all the Windows boxes I use but the default stuff delivered with whatever Linux distro that I have loaded is good enough.)
So, does it stifle competition? I guess it does in the way that there is no need for me to buy yet-another DVD viewer program for my PS2. (Where is all the hubbub about that? The PS2 is in a very dominant position in that market.) However, these functions are becoming basic services that *have* to be delivered with an OS these days for the common users.
Again, most users just want to use what they buy without additional fuss (having to get even more stuff to make it work in basic functions like web browsing and playing music/videos).
In some ways, computer OSs these days are evolving more towards set-top boxes in many ways as the list of "basic services" the thing has to provide become longer and longer. There was a time when listening to music, watching videos, and such things were add-ons. You got these apps when you bought a video card or a sound card. Today, most users consider these to be basic functionality rather than add-ons. An OS that does not deliver these services in at least some basic capacity will not succeed. All the Linux distros know this as well and likewise deliver these basic services.
Re:What I think users expect... (Score:5, Informative)
Prior to the unleashing of Win95, computer makers choose what software to bundle. Quite a few bundled non-microsoft applications with windows 3.x. My first 386/sx came with a media player (Audio Rack), contact management (lotus organizer), IBM DOS, PFS Windows Works, and Windows 3.11. Freebies and discounted software included CDs from Norton, Lantastic, Aol, Prodigy, Genie, Compuserve, Borland etc.
When Microsoft came out with Win95, all that competition ended when they changed the terms for what software could be bundled with Windows. They also dictated to computer makers what software could be sold with thier systems at the risk of loosing thier windows license.
Today with a windows XP PC, you have less choices in software out of the box than your average 3 CD boxed Linux distribution.
Enjoy,
They are an illegal monopoly, no matter what. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft are an abberation--a cancer--on the world's markets and governments. When corporations become more powerful than their governments, the trump card lies with the people. If the governments won't or can't respond, then consumers everywhere need to make a conscience decision to support diversity, competition, and freedom.
Each purchase of a Microsoft product is a vote for a proprietary technocracy with a Microsoft Certified ruling class. Do you really want that? I don't!
Re:They are an illegal monopoly, no matter what. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like OPEC.
Just like the RIAA (not technically a monopoly, but effectively one).
Just like DeBeers.
All industries will consolidate into monopolies if left unchecked. And since politicians keep accepting checks - we'll continue to see more and more consolidation.
Re:They are an illegal monopoly, no matter what. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not convinced of this. A monopoly is temporary as it drives prices above what people are willing to deal with. This is already occuring with Microsoft, and true competitors are appearing in the form of Red Hat, Lindows, Apple, and Sun, for example. Left to regular market forces, Microsoft's days are truly numbered (how can they compete with Linux, which is Free, and Mac OS X, which runs rings around Windows on the desktop, and Solari
More than Media Players (Score:5, Insightful)
From the EU's press release:
"As regards remedies, the Commission has provisionally identified the core disclosure obligations that would be indispensable for Microsoft's competitors in low-end servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. Microsoft would be obliged to reveal the necessary interface information so that rival vendors of low-end servers are able to compete on a level playing-field with Microsoft."
So...Samba benefits. Anyone trying to interoperate with Exchange benefits (I'd presume MAPI would be one of the protocols). People trying to do integration with Active Directory Services benefit. That's the real meat of the notice. The media player is attracting attention, but it's not the most important half by far.
Cheers,
Ian
Puzzling... (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, it is probably the best out of Real Player and Quicktime so really I cannot see anyone wanting to swap Media Player for a crappy RP which pops up every two minutes and basically complains if you don't use it or upgrade it! Quicktime isn't really a big player in any event on the PC for any formats really. So, even if they do succeed in getting Media Player as something you have to 'opt in' to installing I'd guess that the experienced users won't use RP or QT.
Secondly, Media Player is integral to Windows - certainly XP. From the Windows Explorer you can preview media, view films, burn CD's etc etc with it. Ok, I suppose you could take out this functionality but as someone who uses it a lot I don't see why -I- should have my OS experience reduced just so I can get Real Player telling me I have messages every few hours.
Thirdly, as I think some of the other posters have said, there is a gradual blurring between PCs and TVs/hi fi nowadays and it is realistic to be able to have a media player as part of the OS.
I know I will be shot down for this, but the target market for Windows doesn't want to have to select which media player they want - most people won't have a clue anyway - they just want to go to 'My Music' and click on the MP3 and listen to some music whilst they browse the web or whatever.
They certainly have abused their monopoly, but this is just a typical EU style charge (I live in England). A lot of hot air, lots of reports, a good idea but poorly enacted.
Microsoft can afford to ignore this, and they'll just pay the fine and 'look at how we can open up' and do nothing.
The EU cannot stop them trading in the EU at all! Anyone who seriously thinks that is plain daft! I mean, I guess around 95%+ of PC's etc run MS software and if they have to stop trading it would have such a serious impact on business it simply won't happen!
Another example of U.S. legal system troubles (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's FUD campaign didn't survive five minutes in the German legal system, Microsoft is not going to get government permission to do anything the want to like in the U.S., and I don't think O.J. would be playing golf right now if the trial had been anywhere in Europe. America's legal system in increasingly becomming a liability to the U.S: With a bit of luck, Europe will be free of the lead weight of the Microsoft monoploy in a few years, while Americans will still be paying their Redmond tax.
Microsoft's Monopoly is Consumer-Driven (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft's software is as inferior as we, the open source software community, say it is, then it should not be difficult to compete against that software based on quality, features, and usability. If open source software is not up to snuff, then people will either directly or indirectly choose Windows and we need to work on the quality of our products. If open source software is good enough, though, then we don't need to waste our time supporting litigation that will at most be a minor setback for Microsoft. We need to, instead, work on marketing strategies.
In any case, supporting litigation against Microsoft is a waste of valuable resources that could be better spent improving open source software and educating users so they can make informed choices about the software they purchase and use.
Re:Microsoft's Monopoly is Consumer-Driven (Score:4, Interesting)
You do not understand. It is difficult to compete because we cannot provide our services on an equal footing with Microsoft because they won't tell us how to interoperate with their systems. If we can't interoperate with MS systems, and everyone else is using MS systems, then open source options aren't really viable, are they?
(Well, in some cases we are viable -- but only because MS wasn't able to stop all the open standards. Look where all of the major open-source successes have been:
If you substituted ``Microsoft`` with ``Big Tobacco``, would you change your mind?
You're missing the fact that people have been locked into using MS-only systems and *even if they wanted to* would find it very hard to stop. Think about it: they, in effect, provide a significant proportion of our computing infrastructure -- and are preventing anyone from competing with them by not disclosing the vital inferface information about the systems they built that others would need to compete.
They work very hard to maintain the monopoly stranglehold they have created. They bombard the young and impressionable with advertising in print, on television, on billboards. They push ``cheap`` versions of their product on impressional students in schools and universities.
They lobby govenments around the world to say "You should let project leaders make their own choice!" when it comes to choosing between a MS or OSS deployment -- whilst simultaneously doing their utmost to prevent any OSS option from becoming viable.
"Just educate people to do something else" you say. If only it were that easy. To stop smoking is a painful and difficult task at the best of times; divorcing yourself of the MS infrastructure that entangles everything we do is no different.
Microsoft has a monopoly. Nobody disputes that fact. They are using their monopoly position to extend their influence and take control of new markets. This is also not in dispute.
If the United States refuses to take substantive action, then that's their choice. But you're starting to hurt *us* now, we will not stand idly by. The EU, our representatives, have asked Microsoft nicely, patiently, to cease their damaging practices. Three times, they told them stop! And yet they persist, relentlessly.
Well, no more. We're done asking.
Re:Microsoft's Monopoly is Consumer-Driven (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft's competition creates an superior product, then consumers will choose to use alternate software regardless. Interoperability is the least of our problems. If consumers were genuinely concerned about interoperablity, they'd use "Save as HTML" instead of the Word
Everywhere Micrsoft go, they conquer. And they don't want to share their spoils with anyone. This is not what a free market is about.
You're right. Sharing the spoils it not what free market is about at all. Free market is about innovating and creating a better product than your competition so that consumers will choose you over them -- rather than whining about whatever perceived unfair advantage you think the competition has.
If you substituted ``Microsoft`` with ``Big Tobacco``, would you change your mind?
Of course not. People make very bad decisions in their lives and should either live with the consequences or remedy the situation. Notice that suing "Big Tobacco" did nothing to stop people from smoking. It just gave the government a means for seizing the tobacco companys' assets for their own gain. That is essentially what you're asking the government to do for OSS regarding Microsoft.
You're missing the fact that people have been locked into using MS-only systems and *even if they wanted to* would find it very hard to stop. Think about it: they, in effect, provide a significant proportion of our computing infrastructure -- and are preventing anyone from competing with them by not disclosing the vital inferface information about the systems they built that others would need to compete.
It is difficult to switch, but not impossible. Consumers that are concerned about the freedom, stablity, and interoperablity that OSS can provide will make the effort to switch. Those that don't, shouldn't be forced to switch or have their license fees jacked up to pay for legal fees just so you can have the help you think you need from Microsoft for a viable OSS platform. Microsoft provides as much computing infrustrature as consumers will allow. More importantly, though, the open source community does not need Microsoft's cooperation to be viable. OSS should be good enough to stand on its own without standing on Microsoft's shoulders.
They work very hard to maintain the monopoly stranglehold they have created. They bombard the young and impressionable with advertising in print, on television, on billboards. They push ``cheap`` versions of their product on impressional students in schools and universities.
Correction: They work very hard to keep the customers they have gained over the last several years. If OSS vendors and developers had a clue about marketing, they'd be doing the same thing Microsoft does with billboards and print advertising. Instead, the majority of the community just whines. There is nothing ethically or legally that requires Microsoft to reveal methods and code for their products. To force them to do so is unethical, though. I'd call it stealing, but even worse is your contant suggestion that OSS needs Microsoft's cooperation to become viable.
They lobby govenments around the world to say "You should let project leaders make their own choice!" when it comes to choosing between a MS or OSS deployment -- whilst simultaneously doing their utmost to prevent any OSS option from becoming viable.
Do you have any faith in OSS whatsoever to be able to create a quality product without depending on the government to yank Microso
wow!!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
That from http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p _action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/1150%7C0%7CRAPID&lg=EN ; [eu.int]
hey note theres a .ksh in the URL - think they run korn shell cgi's in brussels? :)
Anyway that says OPEN YOUR API TOTALLY MS or face punishmnet. GREAT NEWS for interoperability! Samba and dozens of other programs will benefit immensely.
Govt should stay out of it. (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Do you really want the govt. to dictate what defines a software product? What happens if Linux becomes the dominant OS? Do you really want to deal with lawsuits by the govt telling Red Hat they can't bundle xanim or mozilla because it's anticompetitve. The SCO case is bad enough. You're just setting yourselves up to get screwed in the future if you give the govt this power.
Re:Govt should stay out of it. (Score:3, Informative)
Not the case with Windows, hence the abuse charges. Understand that and all will fall into place for you.
Re:Leave Microsloth alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they have a monopoly, ie so dominant market share that they could do just about what ever they wish if there weren't anti-monopoly laws.
Like, if MS required every big computer maker to actively hamper using linux on their machines or they wouldn't give them OEM Windows license, how many of the computer makers could affort to decline without going out of business very fast? Or if they wouldn't approve (XP style) any drivers or give DirectX support for any graphcis card maker that didn't keep it's specs secret and release drivers for Win only.
So I'd say it's definitely a monopoly, because only anti-monopoly laws are preventing them from doing stuff like above.
Re:Leave Microsloth alone (Score:5, Interesting)
They have hung that over Apples head for a long time. That is what kept IE on the Mac instead of Netscape for many years.
Also what exactly is the marketshare for Macintosh systems these days? Even the graphic shops I go in to are starting to use Wintel machines (not that I think they should use them).
As far as Linux goes, as long as it is free and has the large number of developers working on it, it will continue to make inroads in to Microsoft's monopoly. This is ONLY because people are generally cheap. For the life of me I can't get people to try out OpenOffice, but once I explain that Microsoft Office will cost them >$200.00, suddenly they want to take a long hard look at it.
I fully expect Microsoft to do everything they can to protect their monopoly, as they have done so in the past. Their history has shown that they are not above breaking laws to continue their stranglehold on the software industry, however at this point and time they have little threat of Linux, Apple, OpenOffice on the desktop or office level. This will probably change once more governments start using free software, but at this time they are still the 800 pound gorilla. It also shows why they fight so hard not to loose any government business to Linux.
Re:Leave Microsloth alone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Leave Microsloth alone (Score:3, Insightful)
1) If the company is obviously abusing it's near or total monopoly, definitely
2) They're not talking about shitting down MS, they're talking about stiff fines and (hopefully useful) regulations for MS to follow.
3) It's not simply "the government" since any result will be no doubt be put before the courts.
Quicktime clarification (Score:5, Informative)
Quicktime isn't a file format as such, and there's way more to it than the player which most end-users see. Quicktime is a full media API, the first one that I'm aware of (though I imagine someone will correct me there - perhaps an SGI user?).
An example of a Quicktime use. An old Mac freeware app I wrote, Startupfrills, set a startup picture to show as a Mac booted up. It could handle JPEG, GIF, PNG, TIFF, TGA...you name it. And I never wrote a single line of image format-handling code. Just told Quicktime that I had a media file and would like an image data structure please. The same can be done for movie file formats, sound...a full blown multimedia API.
A better analogy in the MS world would be DirectShow. Not that I've done any DirectX development, but as I understand it you can add support for new file formats to the existing MS APIs via DirectShow filters. From then on, your MS API-based media app can make use of the new file format without ever knowing what it is.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Abuse? (Score:5, Informative)
Realplayer has certainly tried to beat them in the realm of streaming content, but due to such little things as shit for quality and lack of content, they didn't do so well.
That's because M$ was able to push their format as a result of their monopoly. You're confusing the result with the cause.
Quicktime has really always been a Mac format,...
Bullshit. It runs on Windows & OS X which is BSD-based. Hardly a Mac-only (old style) product.
what legacy products???
Take a look at what Microsoft has done to other products as a result of their monopoly (Netscape, Lotus, Sybase) and try to learn something from History.
Re:Abuse? (Score:3, Informative)
QuickTime, market share woes aside, whips Windows Media. MPEG-4 streaming is
In fact, QuickTime was chosen as the basis for MPEG-4. It can't be THAT bad.
The QuickTime container itself is also really great for enhanced multimedia (see the stuff on BMWfilms.com). Better than anything else I've seen yet.
Re:What should Microsoft do? (Score:3, Insightful)
They will include a simple control panel to disable the features, and thus cripple part of the computer's functionality. Making things 'pluggable' invites competition -- a big no-no. Instead, they'll just say "fine, you don't like it? Here's how to rip it out. Object to the way we put this feature in? Ok, here's how to cripple your product so that's not an issue."
Re:Bloomberg article (Score:5, Insightful)
EU budget decifit? What EU budget deficit? This is just another of those anti-EU scare stories. The EU as an institution isn't able to run a budget deficit, because the tab for whatever it spends is picked up by the member states (and with a total bugdet running at around 1% of the EU's GDP, that's not too much of a burden).
Now it's true that many EU member states are running budget deficits (what country isn't these days) but that's entirely independent, and certainly the actions of the EU commission will not be motivated by the marginal effect on the budget deficits of individual countries.
Re:4 years and this is all they have.... (Score:4, Informative)
You don't get it. Do you really think WMP, IE, etc are all free? THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF WINDOWS!
Microsoft has been doing the same thing for many years. Anyone remeber Stacker?
They find a successful add-on software application and build it into the OS. Since it comes with the OS, their competition dies, and they just raise the price of Windows a Little.
Re:4 years and this is all they have.... (Score:5, Informative)
RealOne player: Here, free. [real.com]
MusicMatch : Here, free. [llnw.net]
QuickTime: Here, free. [akamai.net]
You were saying?
(Oh, don't forget Winamp! [nullsoft.com] Probrably the best of the bunch, IMHO.
Soko
Re:Ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason microsoft should be forced to do this is that it is illegal for a monopoly to abuse its power. This is NOT the nasty-old EU having a go at poor-old MS.
It is not acceptable for someone who buys a desktop from MS to use Word, to be forced to use a MS server - these are completely different beasts, and there is not good reason why they should have to come from the same company
Now of course MS would very much like you to buy everything from them, but the wider needs of society outweigh the desires of one company, (which, almost by definition, is doing okay if it's a monopoly).
MS has all the benefits of being a de facto monopoly, whose file formats etc are industry standard. The downside is it cannot act like a normal company - for the good of all of us it must be made to keep its interfaces open, so that (coming back to my example) another company can make a server that works as well as a MS powered one. Then the consumer can make a choice based on performance, rather than being forced to opt for an inferior product, simply because it's the only game in town. And it is this competition which drives innovation and progress.
And why is no one in Europe worried about Apple? OS X includes EVEN MORE apps than does Windows--the only difference is not as many people use OS X.
Even if this were true Apple is not a monopoly, and so different laws apply.