Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts News

Microsoft Defies EU Commission 872

Posted by CowboyNeal from the sure-it-is dept.
otahkgeek writes "Wired News is reporting that Microsoft claims that by removing Windows Media Player from Windows, it would be forced to ship a substandard version to European consumers. This is on the heels of a three-day hearing by a European commission to determine the validity of charges that Microsoft illegally abused its power over the home computer market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Defies EU Commission More

Microsoft Defies EU Commission

Comments Filter:

  • O_o;; (Score:5, Funny)

    by FortissimoWily ( 703397 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:39PM (#7470811)
    Shipping a substandard OS to European customers?
    How is this news? They've been doing that for years. ;)

  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by the_other_one ( 178565 ) * on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:41PM (#7470820) Homepage
    Will the substandard DRM free, anti American version be available in North America for purchase or will I have to pirate a copy.

  • Discount (Score:5, Funny)

    by wombatmobile ( 623057 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:42PM (#7470827)
    I don't need a media player with the operating system, just an operating system. That's cheaper, right?
    • I certainly wish that they would be forced to sell just an operating system. It wouldn't be at all unfair towards MS since the cost for the web browser, media player and all other crap is included in the price anyway it's basically MS choosing which web browser and media player you buy, which, however, most definitely is unfair towards customers. But if they were forced to just sell the OS and then all other programs separately there would be fair competition; let's say that you buy the OS for X euros you c

      • Re:Discount (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BrokenHalo ( 565198 )
        I certainly wish that they would be forced to sell just an operating system.

        I would be happy if they sold an operating system, rather than the cobbled-together collection of hacks buried under a pile of mind-numbing UI candyfloss that comprises XP. Seems that every time I try to get anything done on those machines, the object of the OS is to prevent the user from operating the system.

    • Re:Discount (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In my understanding of the Windows architecture, the "OS" resides on the boot sector. The rest of the install is a windowing system, a web browser, a media player, and a lot of glue to make everything hold together.

  • It's kind of pointless trying to persuade them (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:42PM (#7470828) Journal
    Microsoft has always taken the most contrary stance possible to it's critics, be they consumer or judicial - or even government. Acts of persuausion or coercion by the E.U. are pointless. Microsoft will never change their ways unless they punished, period.

    At some point someone is going to have to stand up to them. Being able to dodge bullets wouldn't hurt, but hopefully, whoever finally does won't have to.

    • I'm searching, I'm searching! But it's not easy to find the One, you know, before Agent Gates gets to them.

    • Re:It's kind of pointless trying to persuade them (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mozumder ( 178398 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:52PM (#7470893)
      Meanwhile, I take the view that we should let Microsoft do whatever they want. Let them force hardware makers to bundle WMP9 or IE. That'll only force people to build upon non-MS operating systems, such as Linux or MacOS.

      The competition exists, and microsoft's 90% share in the marketplace isn't insurmountable, as the leading-edge users are still going to innovate on Linux or Mac.

      The only question is how many people are developing for linux or macs vs. windows....

      • Re:It's kind of pointless trying to persuade them (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:14PM (#7471413) Homepage
        Meanwhile, I take the view that we should let Microsoft do whatever they want. Let them force hardware makers to bundle WMP9 or IE. That'll only force people to build upon non-MS operating systems, such as Linux or MacOS.

        No. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. A US court actually found them guilty, although the punishment was a slap on the wrist. This means that Microsoft has been found to use illegal activities to lock-in customers, so that they cannot switch without substantial (possibly insurmountable) burden. You cannot let them do "whatever," because they will exploit illegal methods to prevent people from "building upon non-MS operating systems."

      • What if as a state you decide to view Microsoft as a sovereign nation, then as a state, enact full trade sanctions?
        It doesn't make any sense, then again nothing in politics has for quite some time.
    • Where's Keanu Reeves when you need him?
  • First of all, MS can't be saying that it's WMP that's making Windows superior? You've got to be kidding me. Most people don't even use that app for their multimedia needs.

    But anyway, I'm not against them shipping a more inferior product... this might be the beginning of the opportunity that alternative OSs have been waiting for.

    First Europe... then the world!

    • Re:As if this was a bad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:52PM (#7470895) Homepage
      First of all, MS can't be saying that it's WMP that's making Windows superior? You've got to be kidding me. Most people don't even use that app for their multimedia needs.

      I suspect you're referring to the same "most people" who don't use Internet Explorer (a truly inferior product) for their web-browsing needs - in other words, "a minority of people." I use Windows XP (surprisingly, the best Microsoft OS I've used) and I find that that Windows Media Player, with the appropriate codecs installed, works quite well for a wide variety of multimedia files. The idea that "most people" using Windows are using an outside multimedia viewer/player when the software that comes with the system works fine is laughable.

      • True, but most people seem to have something else, be it MusicMatch, iTunes, or Real Player.

      • OK, I get the point... My post was referring to using WMP as a standalone player not an embedded media MIME file handler for IE.

        But I still stand on the "most people" statement. Audio player? Many still swear that WinAmp is the be all and end all audio player. Video player? That DivX player is not half bad.

        And another thing, you mentioned that WMP works fine... I do agree that to a minimal extent, it does... it plays MPEGs, MP3s and some other common media files as well as MS propietry formats.

        But you al

      • Re:As if this was a bad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by znu ( 31198 ) <znu.public@gmail.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:28PM (#7471139)
        Untying WMP from Windows wouldn't result in PCs shipping with no media player installed -- it would just put the choice in the hands of OEMs, rather than Microsoft.

        • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:28PM (#7471509)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Here's another worse-case scenario if MS took a bunch of vital components out of the OS...

            Peon: Sir, we need to figure out which browser, video player and instant messaging system to put into our computers.
            CEO: Huh, what? I was sleeping.
            Peon: And very well, too, sir.
            CEO: So what did you want again?
            Peon: We need to put a browser, video player and instant messaging system on our computers and I need to know which ones to use.
            CEO: There's more than one? Damn. Well, how do we make money?
            Peon: The Rea

    • Re:As if this was a bad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:37PM (#7471199)
      Nonsense, I use WMP for my music all the time. The trick is to disable the DRM feature. On my Win XP computer, open up Media Player, go to Tools, Options. On the Options window, go to the Copy Music tab, and make sure the "Protect content" box is unchecked.

      Windows Media Player is stable, and it organizes my music nicely (Granted, I don't have a huge collection of music, so YMMV). I've had IE crash on me more times than WMP has (IE has crashed more in these last few days than since I got it; it's probably because the laptop isn't Suspending properly. Anyway, WMP has crashed maybe once or twice. Not too shabby), and WMP is constantly running in the background. Dell shipped MusicMatch Jukebox preloaded onto my laptop, but I haven't used it, nor do I intend to. Dell's branded version of Musicmatch is, in my opinion, buggy and bloated.

      Not to mention, I downloaded MusicMatch onto my 5 yr old Compaq Armada, running Win 98, and it's as slow as molasses when loading and running MusicMatch. Interestingly enough, when I uninstalled MusicMatch and installed the latest version of WMP (keep in mind this is a 5yr old Win 98 Compaq Armada) it worked fine. So I left WMP on it.

      Say what you like about MS software, but WMP is off limits. It's a good program. Besides, what is Joe Sixpack going to do without WMP? Search around for other solutions? No way. Joe probably doesn't know there are alternate programs for music playback.

  • Err... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rune.w ( 720113 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:42PM (#7470830)

    Microsoft claims that by removing Windows Media Player from Windows, it would be forced to ship a substandard version to European consumers.

    Is it me or I'm the only one who thinks this is an oxymoron?

    R.

  • The Commission calls it a product, but Microsoft considers it one function of Windows

    Call it what it is: A Feature!

  • I know a lot of /.'s American readers might not care so much, but as a belgian, I'm glad this has finally started. I read a story [internetnews.com] about this a few days ago, and it was still undecided how MS would proceed. I wonder how the EU will see this in light of the recent warning from america's government about the Shop for Music [microsoft-watch.com] mess. Feature my arse. Anyway, we europeans have got to do our part to fight software patents and monopolies, and I'm glad to see the EU might be up to the task.

  • Ban 'em! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:46PM (#7470851) Homepage
    I, for one, am sick of all of this. I must say that I would LOVE to see the EU place an import ban on Microsoft Software (at least Windows), even if for only for a week, or even a day. See what a few billion in lost revenues does to 'em.

    Or put some kind of huge levy on them, like $20 per copy of Windows brought into the country untill the WMP is removed, and ban Microsoft from raising the price (both to consumers and to OEMs) so that they can't pass on the cost. Again, when they start to lose a lot of money, maybe they're realize that something bad WILL happen to them, it's not just a bluff.

    Either way, I'd like to see the EU (or ANYONE) just stick it to MS for once to show them they can't keep pushing everyone around. And, if the EU forces someone to offer a "inferior version", shouldn't they be forced to sell that inferior version or NOTHING? Microsoft has called your bluff, so step up to the plate!

    At this point, I think that a breakup (into OS, Office, Games, Hardware, and Other) would have made things so much better for us all.

    • Re:Ban 'em! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uh, EU thinks Windows has abused the market by including WMV? According to most of the posts here, WMV is never used because there are such superior 3rd party apps available. What am I missing? Sounds more like a money grab from a successful US company (Who hasn't gained anything from steel tariffs). If you don't like MS buy a MAC or use Linux.

      (From an Anomymous Coward in the USA who is tired of every site wanting one to create an account. I get enough SPAM without submitting to the Wired crowd.)

    • Re:Ban 'em! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:00PM (#7470949)
      With a near 100% profit margin on Windows, enough money in their coffers to end world hunger if they ever felt like it, and the various versions of Windows having several hundred dollar price tags, I don't think Microsoft has much to fear from a $20 per copy fee.

      And firmer means are kind of scary to implement. Even the EU is so Windows-dependent that a ban on imports until Media Player is removed could cause some serious problems if Microsoft decides to wait it out instead of complying right away.

  • It's ok, it's a "function" of Windows (Score:3, Interesting)

    by obsid1an ( 665888 ) <obsidianNO@SPAMmchsi.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:49PM (#7470867)
    "The Commission calls it a product, but Microsoft considers it one function of Windows..."

    So what exactly isn't an OS supposed to do? This argument could be made for ANYTHING MS wanted to put into Windows.

    Internet browsing, function.

    Media player, function.

    Word & speadsheet processing, function.

    Image editing, function.

    Developer IDE, function.

    Cost of OS, $400.

    • I'd hate to offend the average self-rightous-MS-hating slashdotter, but seriously... I don't want an empty shell of an OS. I don't use linux because it isn't convenient for me. Want to watch a movie? I can go grab it, and maybe a codec or two, and I'm set. While winamp is a decent MP3 player, I have yet to find a video player that works as well as WMP. I don't like Quicktime, and I'll never use "The Divx Playa" as long as I live. If you have Windows XP installed and you don't want to use WMP, then don
    • Most of these are included in my trusty new copy of Mac OS X 10.3.

  • I know this goes against the grain of what most Slashdotters believe, but Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government. The US Postal Service is a monopoly, because (IIRC) the US government forbids anyone from charging lower postage for first class mail within the US, for example.

    If you don't like IE, use Netscape or Opera or lynx or whatever. If you don't like Windows, use Linux or BSD or HURD or BeOS or MacOS or...

    If you don't like Windows
    • RTFA.

      This isn't about Microsoft's monopoly. It's about how MS uses its large market share in the OS market to push its own software in other markets (ie - the media player market).
      • What "media player market?"

        Seriously, is anyone making money off of media players? Divx has the free ad version (and hacked versions galore), Quicktime -- also free unless you "go pro" (which, annoyingly, you are offered the chance to do on every start-up), WinAMP -- similarly free with a "special" version I've never seen anyone with, and RealPlayer, well, bleh.

        Does anyone have any stats on actual sales of media player software? I'm guessing it's negligibly small.

        Of course, one might argue that

    • Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're an idiot. Get a new dictionary; the one you have is crap.

      Many companies that had no exclusive market rights from the government have been broken up because they were monopolies. Legal monopolies are government sanctioned and illegal monopolies are not. Can you guess which Microsoft is? (hint: you answered it in your post).
    • This is not the issue at all. The real issue is not whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly, but the fact that they are unfairly using the monopoly that they gained in the desktop OS market to push other products into consumers. The first example was Netscape. Right now it's Windows Media Player. Next, who knows? probably Microsoft Reader Document, or the Flash competition they are supposedly developing. The truth is that Microsoft is gaining market share in certain areas with inferior products simply bec

    • Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits (Score:5, Informative)

      by proxima ( 165692 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:25PM (#7471116)
      First of all, a monopoly is "the only supplier of a product for which there is no close substitute." (according to my Modern Industrial Organization textbook, by Carlton and Perloff.) This definition, and most others, have nothing to do with "market rights from the government". Those are simply government-established monopolies.

      Now, from a practical standpoint, a company is a monopoly if it exerts too much influence in one market (basically a company that is close to a textbook monopoly). They have the ability to manipulate price to increase profits for themselves and by doing so create a deadweight loss to market (consumers lose a lot, monopoly gains some, some "welfare" just goes away).

      Monopolies can be "natural" in some markets, usually those where fixed costs are high (think electrical companies with massive grids and expensive power plants). Many monopolies are left alone as long as they don't (overly) abuse their market power, usually by using that market influence to gain influence in a new market. This brings about anti-trust actions. With Microsoft, they leveraged their operating system "monopoly" to make their Internet Explorer the dominant browser in the market (by giving it away and tying it to the OS). They have been found guilty of this, but it's easy to see them using their market power in other areas as well.

      Even if you were to define a "monopoly" as a company given that power by the government, one can make an argument for that with Microsoft as well. Copyrights and patents are what allows Microsoft to produce products that others could not simply resell at a lower price, decompile/disassemble and release the modified code, etc. (legally). However, most people see a need for copyrights and patents to encourage people to produce "intellectual property" and be able to make some money off of it.

      In general, the function of government is to try to improve the welfare of its citizens, and reducing a monopoly's power has that effect.

    • Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits (Score:5, Informative)

      by slashdot_commentator ( 444053 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:35PM (#7471178) Journal

      A monopoly is a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government.

      No, that is a definition of a utility, such as a power company, or cable service. The price that the entity pays for having exclusive rights is that it is HEAVILY regulated by the local, state, and federal government. Are you suggesting that Microsoft is a not a monopoly, but a utility that should be subject to heavy government regulation?

      The US Postal Service is a monopoly

      Technically, no. The US Postal Service was considered an organ of government. Do you call the Federal Judicial system a monopoly? The federal government has offloaded that function to a non-governmental entity, in order to improve its efficiency.

      Standard Oil was a company that did not get exclusive market rights from the federal government, but was able to use its market position to extort profits from its consumers. It was also able to crush competitors by either lowering its prices to prevent either of them from making a profit, or prevent them from gaining access to materials to produce their product. This is the generally accepted definition of a monopoly. It does not require a coercion from the government.

      While I do respect your libertarian point of view, I question whether you genuinely understand what constitutes a monopoly.

    • A monopoly is a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government.

      Ah...no. Sorry, you are incorrect. In the one direction, a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government is a monopoly - yes, that is true. In the other direction, a company needs only to have enough control over the market to be able to discourage any significant competition from forming. It is quite possible for a company to become a monopoly without any special rights granted by the government. Most of the laws

    • Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits (Score:4, Informative)

      by Tony-A ( 29931 ) on Friday November 14, 2003 @12:37AM (#7471843)
      They are not a legal monopoly.

      Correct. They are an illegal monopoly.
      The nature of legal monopolies is that they are extremely regulated by government bodies. This is required because there are not the market forces in play to ensure fair play by the monopolies.

  • What courts should force MS to do. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:50PM (#7470876) Homepage Journal
    Windows just like DOS is a Operating System OS. That's all it should do. Provide a platform to run ANY program you wish to run on it.

    Required programs should consist of basic grapics and network drivers that are compatible with almost everything. Some generic browser that's not intergrated into the entire system to allow one to select their own browser.

    Then it can also provide links to obtain optimized drivers from each vendor that your PC runs from. Or download them itself and install as necessary.

    Either way. Internet Explorer and WMP through licensing and other agreements have become vital and critical portions of other systems. There are whole groups of banks who will not allow you to conduct transactions from any other browser other than IE and there are tons of media houses that will not let you access it without IE AND WMP.

    Of course some would argue that some sites are RA and Quicktime only. So I'd say force them to allow others to view their encoded content also and let them focus on the encoding part not the consumer part.

    These are the same tactics being employed by many companies such as a printer shop that has elevated USB cables becuase the printer company does not include a USB cable most times. Or Local Number Portability. Think you're using that GSM phone on a CDMA network?

    When was the last time you used a standard set of tools on your car or truck without having to have some special star socket to finish the job.

    You can all whine and point the finger at MS but these issues surround your daily life. How bad does it have to get before you stand up and tell your politicans were tired of it. I sure hope it's not to the point where you cant use X toilet paper with Y toilet without it refusing to flush.
    • I don't think talking about what an operating system is and is not is really a good way to be framing any arguments here. Nor is talking about what should or should not be packaged with an OS.

      If we say it's absolutely wrong for MS to include Media Player with Windows, we're also saying that Apple is wrong to include iTunes and Quicktime, and the various Linux distros are wrong to include whatever media players they choose to include with their distros. I, for one, am fine with these packages being includ

  • You gotta include something... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Frankly, I don't care what media player is included with the OS, so long as one is included at all. If the EU forces Microsoft to un-bundle WMP, I hope it'll force it to include some other media player. Releasing an OS today without media playback capabilities is ridiculous.

    I know it's easy enough to go download your latest copy of winamp or whatever, but frankly - there are a lot of people out there, that wouldn't know the first place to look, and will be left wondering why nothing happens when they doubl
    • I hope it'll force it to include some other media player

      What if it is obnoxious-Ware (tm) supremo RealPlayer?

      Still think that would be good? Shutter!

  • Not important (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:54PM (#7470910) Homepage
    This isn't really all that important. I'll only be able to rejoice once the EU forces them to remove Clippy.

  • The old saying (Score:5, Funny)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:55PM (#7470920)
    Like they say: A computer without Windows Media Player is like a dog without a brick tied to its head.

  • The EU probably won't do anything to Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:56PM (#7470926)
    I don't think the EU is much less in the pockets of corporations than the U.S. government, considering how quickly they've done things like passing an even worse version of the DMCA than the DMCA itself is.

    That being the case, how many here think the EU will actually bother to stand up to Microsoft in the end? My bet is that the EU will continue to make noise about Microsoft until Microsoft pays them off (quietly, behind the scenes, of course), at which point the EU will quietly decide not to "go forward" with any sort of real action against Microsoft. At most, the EU will probably give Microsoft a good wrist-slapping ("Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!").

    Only if a more powerful multinational corporation attempts to influence the EU against Microsoft will the EU really do anything.

    • Actually the EU has a history of taking quite unexpected steps against companies or governments that do not comply with its regulations. It may be very boring and sometimes hard to follow, but the EU (both as an organization and as a trade block) is a true powerhouse when it comes to economics that does not think lightly of splitting up companies, refusing mergers, forcing governments to change centuries old judicial procedures, ban politically sensitive subsidies et cetera. If they set their minds to it, M
    • Like when EU blocked the merger of Honeywell and GE? GE is a humungous corporation, yet their plans were thwarted by EU.

  • what about xmms in linux distros? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So linux distros aren't going to be allowed to ship xmms, or do we need to wait until Linux is a monopoly.
    • XMMS isn't installed by default, nor is it the only media player shipped with most distributions. When you install linux, you can choose exactly which packages you want to install. Imagine if windows came with wmp and winamp, and during installation you got to choose which one you wanted to install.
  • If Microsoft actually defies the EU commision and refuses to remove MediaPlayer I would be totally interested as to what the EU would do. They would fine Microsoft but that is probably the least of Microsoft's worries, but would they actually go as far as forbidding the sale of Windows until this was cleared up? I doubt it because Windows is used by the vast majority of businesses in Europe where it has much the same dominant share as in the USA and the business lobby is as strong in the EU as it is in the
    • Maybe they'd just streamline WMP so that it approaches Winamp 2 in terms of simplicity and low memory requirements. Heck, mplayer2 ships with Win XP which isn't that bad!

      Maybe they could just buy out nullsoft, apple and realplayer and create some sort of super Godzilla media player!

  • The whole point behind getting them to ship the OS without a "built-in" media player, or whatever else, is that the whole thing would be substandard.

    Honestly, how many people would go down to the store and buy windows media player if MS had to retail it just like other player's have to (or at least theoretically have to).

    If it's so critical for them to ship the media player attached at the hip to the OS then the EU should make them a deal.

    The EU should say, "Ok you can ship the OS with the media player e
  • You mean Windows ME.

  • It's not about the applications (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Malc ( 1751 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:02PM (#7470960)
    I couldn't give two hoots about Real to be honest. Their product has always been substandard and intensely irritating. What I am concerned about is that by muscling the competition out that MSFT get to set the standards for file formats, network protocols etc. This is far more lucrative to them, and has far more potential to limit our choices as users. It certainly won't be favourable to our pocket books.

  • Is it really that important? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Txiasaeia ( 581598 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:10PM (#7471009)
    This is NOT a big deal. So Windows comes with a media player -- so what? It's even half-decent -- if people don't want it, they can download other players. Even if they don't, it's not like there are tons of media players out there that cost money -- the big ones, Winamp and even QT are free to use for personal use.

    Besides, the closest competition that the article mentions, RealPlayer, has constantly been flamed as bloated spyware. What's the difference between WMP and RP? Choice? I can choose to load up IE (or Opera, or Firebird, or Lynx W32) and download a different media player.

    If the EU forces MS to take out WMP, then they should also remove Notepad, Calculator, MS Paint, Address Book, Hyperterminal... the list goes on.

    What MS could do instead: ship with a non-WMP Windows version, then ask the user every day if they'd like to update their computer to include WMP.

    [__] No thanks, go away

    [__] Yes please!

    • Re:Is it really that important? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dameron ( 307970 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:28PM (#7471507)
      If it's installed by default it's what most people will use. If a media player plays an MP3 file, a video, does streaming content that's pretty much all most people want from a media player. MS has been shown to have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. They abused that monopoly to squish alternative browsers and they're trying to do the same thing to media players.

      If the EU forces MS to take out WMP, then they should also remove Notepad, Calculator, MS Paint, Address Book, Hyperterminal... the list goes on.

      Well, that'd be a good start and hints at how long this has been going on and the depth of the problem. Suppose you work for a software company that provides an interesting utility, like a zip program or a telnet client. Should MS decide to add such a program to the OS, like they did with a zip utility in recent incarnations, your business could dry up and die because you never got a chance to compete. Suddenly 90% of computers sold can already do what your program does.

      What if you'd purchased a car from MS and it came with a free television. Normally that's not too bad a deal, and sometimes you see things like this in real life so you might thing there's nothing wrong with that. Now suppose that there was only one source of cars and pretty much everybody who purchased a car had to buy it from Microsoft and got that free tv. Now imagine that you make competing televisions.

      Now imagine you purchase the car, got the free tv, and now suddenly your VCR doesn't work, you need a Microsoft VCR.

      That's why it's important. I don't want to have to buy MS brand toilet paper one day to make my ass compatible.

      -dameron
  • ...to drive the Europeans into the open and waiting arms of Linux, BSD, and the likes? Who in the world at MS was responsible for making this "threat?"

    Shareholders must be loving this (not).

  • Price? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by slapout ( 93640 )
    Since it will have a "feature" missing, does this mean it will cost less?
  • Ironically, tonight I moved a harddrive from one computer to another and some of the music files were encoded as WMP's (some tests I did for audio quality comparison). As soon as I tried to play one the web browser popped up asking me if I wanted to migrate my DRM license [microsoft.com]? Huh? What? DRM license? Microsoft is telling me a need a license to listen to my own stuff? Thanks for telling me after I take everything apart.

    Believe me, you aren't missing anything by not using Windows Media Player. Use Realpla

  • Microsoft does have a point... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by olePigeon (Wik) ( 661220 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:34PM (#7471172)

    Those "features" should, however, be optional.

    Completely removing Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer is going a little too far. They should just implement some of the earlier suggestions in the U.S. trials by making each of those "features" an optional install at the BEGINNING of the install process. Have a Customize button just like in Mac OS that lets you choose which features you want to have installed on the OS.

    I think the difference between an Application and an OS feature for Microsoft is whether or not those "features" are available for other operating systems. For example, Windows Media Player should not be a feature because it's a full fledged application for Mac OS. Likewise with Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer (though Microsoft could get away with Explorer still since they no longer offer it for Mac OS.)

    I find it irksome that when it comes to security Microsoft likes to point out the distinctions between "features" and OS when considering a security hole. If there's a security problem with Internet Explorer, they don't call it Windows, they make sure everyone knows it's just Internet Explorer and not the "OS". Likewise if there's a problem with Windows, it has nothing to do with Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc.

    So if Microsoft likes to refer to these "features" as separate entities in relation to security, then they should be treated as such and made removable during installation.

  • Steel tariffs (Score:5, Informative)

    by tehanu ( 682528 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:50PM (#7471285)
    I wonder if the EU has thought of just including MS products in the 100% tariffs category (along with things like sunglasses and motorbikes) that they are allowed (by the WTO) to impose on imports from the US as a retalitory measure to the illegal US steel tariffs. Come to think of it, weren't countries like Japan, China, Korea, Australia as well as a host of others also part of the WTO judgement (on the side of the EU) as well?

    So Dubya, keep those illegal steel tariffs! Remember you need to win votes in steel producing states in the next election!

  • Wrong focus, yet again! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Adrian Lopez ( 2615 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:55PM (#7471311) Homepage
    When will governments learn? Just as the US government crippled its antitrust case against microsoft by focusing on bundling rather than on Microsoft's contracts with OEMs, the European Union is making the same mistake. It's not the bundling that's the problem, it's Microsoft's stranglehold over the OEM market that's the problem. Address that instead of forcing them to remove a useful part of the Windows bundle.

    That said, I do wish that governments would do something about preserving fair use in a world full of DRM software. While Windows Media Player may itself contribute to restrictions on fair use, it is by no means the only mechanism - nor even the primary mechanism - through which DRM content will be delivered. DRM is a great deal more dangerous than the bundling of media player software. The EU makes a big fuss about Windows Media Player, but what are they doing to mitigate the negative effects of DRM? Nothing at all.

  • The No Spin Zone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsmith-mac ( 639075 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:55PM (#7471315)
    There are times when I wish we could mod stories down, so that stories like this could be killed. For anyone that reads the article, it talks about what MS told the EU about what they insist are the ramifications of removing WMP from Windows, but the title is "Microsoft Defies EU Commission". Please tell me where it states that MS isn't complying with the EU, or otherwise doing something that is defying the EU(other than the monopoly issue at hand). This is a disagreement with the EU, perhaps even a strong one, but for MS to defy the EU they must either act when they shouldn't, or not act when they should; you can't defy the EU when the action in question never left the proposal stage.

  • Go Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jubii ( 315611 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:15PM (#7471418) Homepage
    I'm sure this will get modded down as a troll, but I feel I must clear my chest. I say bravo to Microsoft for giving them the finger. You buy the software "as is". Windows comes with Internet Explorer, Outbreak Express, and the Win Media Player - for everyone. That's the way it is. They are not in the business of customizing their operating system for certain audiences. It is my uderstanding that the EU sees WMP as a threat to other multimedia technologies, but I don't think they should force MS to remove their application as a solution. Truth of the matter is you don't see anyone jumping on Apple's case for having built-in web, email, and multimedia. If roles were reversed, and everybody used a Mac, would the EU be telling Apple that they should unbundle Quicktime with their os due to monopolistic practices?? I feel the Union is overstepping its boundries... I don't belive that Microsoft has a superior product with WMP, and I believe their response to the EU was a nice way of saying, "screw off, we're not going to reengineer our crap!" And honestly people, how many times have you wanted to say that yourself?

  • too little too late (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gmkeegan ( 160779 ) <gmkeegan&yahoo,com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:29PM (#7471517)
    According to the story, the commission will reach a decision "by June of 2004", after which it may go to court. By then the pc-media-player wars will be over and MS will have destroyed another category of software.

    To sleep, perchance to dream

  • Media Player Classic - Alternative to WMP (Score:5, Informative)

    by Civil_Disobedient ( 261825 ) on Friday November 14, 2003 @03:23AM (#7472409)
    Those interested in a nicely-hacked, small-footprint version of WMP should take a look at Media Player Classic [sourceforge.net].

    The nice thing about WMP is that it's a self-contained executable, it allows you to add any DirectShow filters you may have installed, supports Quicktime and RealMedia (that's right! get rid of those ugly, bloated pieces of dogshit), as well as DVD support and built-in support for TV cards.

    Basically, it does everything, weighs in at under a meg, and looks and feels just like Media Player 6.4. Get it. Now.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close