MS May Be Forced To Sell Stripped-Down OS In EU 666
An anonymous reader submits "According to this article at Infoworld, Microsoft may be forced to sell a stripped-down version of Windows in the EU as a result of antitrust rulings, unless a settlement is reached during the next month to six weeks." (See this post from last week for more background on the EU's antitrust proceedings.)
Stripped-down, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stripped-down, eh? (Score:4, Funny)
On the same note.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
when you are a convicted monopolist. the rules suddenly change.
so dont bother with those comparisons, they just dont work
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, fair point, but let's consider what products we deal with here...
MSIE, a free web browser, vs Netscape/Mozilla, a free web browser.
WMP, a free all-in-one multimedia playing app, vs Winamp3/5, Quicktime, RealOne, and a few other free all-in-one multimedia playing apps.
As for Word and Excel... Well, I didn't get them for free with Windows... What deal did you get?
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but telling them they can't include a free product to
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Informative)
But MSIE is not free, in either the libre or gratis sense. MS is on record the IE costs them over USD100M per year and the cost of that is built into the cost of the OS. Win XP should be $40 per pc cheaper, and then the user can be be free (libre) to choose whether they want MS media player or not.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Informative)
Since you asked: (Score:5, Insightful)
It allowed MS to control the defacto internet standards for a long time.. we're still in the process of getting away from that. How many sites do you see that still say "Best viewed with IE", and browsers that are actually adhering to W3C standards are being blocked?
That kind of lock-in means any possible competition is always playing catch-up. Not to mention gives MS huge leverage (which they used) against other standards, such as Java (hence why Sun sued), or in the market for selling server software ("IE works best with our software.. and everybody uses IE, so you should really get ours.")
But beyond this, it doesn't even matter. If IE was offered for free, but *not included* with the OS, Netscape wouldn't even have had arguing rights, because at that point MS would not have been leveraging monopoly status in one market (OS) to affect the business of another (Browser). However, they did, and that's where they crossed the line.
As for baseless generalizations, you also make one when you suggest that without MS we'd have a far worse mess. There's no proof of that, as the computing industry was already starting to realize the benefits of standardization, at least for interoperability, when MS came along.
From where I sit, MS's overwhelming monopoly actually hurt interoperability.. why? Because people didn't need to think about designing their programs for multiple systems.. they could just design for Windows and that was good enough.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, when you step back about ten feet and view it with an objective perspective, is absolutely insane.
One day you're perfectly legal trying to gain market share by bundling two of your products together. Next day you gain one customer too many, and what you did yesterday is now illegal. There is no philosophical or ethical foundation for this, only a vague sense of "big==evil" political kneejerkery.
Lady Justice is always depicted with a bli
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't see that unbridled capitalism is not only not good for the public, but ultimately self-destructive, as one company gobbles up its smaller competitors until there is no competition whatsoever and the whole thing comes crashing down from its own weight (causing collateral damage on the way to imploding), then I guess the rules might look a little vague. That doesn't prove that they are vague mind you, only that you lack an education on the subject.
Right now MS is guilty as charged but not serving the sentence, due to a lax enforcement policy of the current pro-big business administration. If the antitrust laws were being enforced as designed, MS would be under a lot more scrutiny and greater sanctions.
The Europeans have their own laws and if MS wants to do business in Europe then it must obey the laws over there. We wouldn't expect anything less of a foreign company doing business in the U.S. would we?
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You forgot the real gem in the whole silly concept. There's no objective, consistent definition of when a corporation becomes a monopoly. It's like the obscenity of business - "I know it when I see it". Pract
Re:On the same note.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Although IANAL, I am pretty convinced this is not true. The rules are the same for everyone. The point is that a monopolist can do things others can not, such as killing off a competitor in another market by bundling applications or making sure your competitor's stuff is incompatible with yours.
Being a monopoly is not illegal, using your monopolistic force to your advantage is. You are not allowed to do things others cannot do because they are not a monopoly. However, as a monopoly you do not suffer from restrictions others lack.
Of course, when you are a monopolist who abuses his power, a court may put special restrictions on you as a punishment.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:4, Insightful)
With one you can assume a reasonbly level playing field with the other the playing field has been tilted only to the advantage of the convicted company.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But you are right. In one sense, it seems all companys are cut throat and don't play fair, to some degree...So one might ask "why penalize microsoft for something that other companies are doing"
possible answer: Make an example out of them, i.e. I think the point of bitch slapping monopolies though, is to remind all the other corporations that there _are_ upper bounds to corporate shenanigans.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:4, Interesting)
That isn't the point: you can say the same about IE. The result of that is that many websites code specifally for IE and shrug if it doesn't work in other browsers. You can expect (as mentioned in the FA) that much content will be offered that ONLY works in WMP; thus creating a new monoploy for billg: control of digital media and a cut of every dollar spent on it and the decline of open standard media.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example. A media company wants to release some videos for download. What format do they pick? Windows Media. Why? Because they know that it will be on 90%+ of all user desktops. This gives MS an instant monopoly on a video format by just putting it in their OS. They didn't earn that monopoly, they leveraged one monopoly to get it. Now if MS were to include a competing format say, Quicktime or RealVideo in their OS, OR, make the wma format open, then no one would be able to complian since now people can choose the format they want based on merit and not the fact that it is what is included in the OS. When you are a monopoly, all your actions are watched closely to see if you are trying to tip the level of competition in your favor by leveraging your monopoly.
This does not apply to Apple since they have less then 3% of the desktop market, 0.1% less then Linux on the desktop infact. Apple's format is picked because of the quality, not because Apple is leveraging a monopoly.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to be cynical - but apple has 100% of the Macintosh desktop market - a true monopoly. (since you didn't define a market segment - let me do it for you).
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple does not have a monopoly of home computer users, Microsoft does. Most things MS "integrates" into their OS will become a monopoly simply because they have a monopoly on the home computer user market.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is *precisely* what MS is doing. Does anyone think that IE would have like 90% market-penetration if not for the fact that MS uses it's monopoly in OSes to push it ?
Does anyone think that WMP would be used by something like 80% of all people for playing mp3s and watching divx-movies if not for the fact that MS uses it's powers as monopolist in order to push it ?
The thing which you refuse to face is that there *ARE* certain actions that are perfectly legal in ordinary bussiness, but which are illegal if done by a actor enjoying monopoly-status. And there are *reasons* for this. The main reason is that if we don't have such rules, monopolies have a tendency to grow;
MS has a monopoly in OSes for personal computers. Next they'll use that to gain a monopoly in web-browsers (some would argue they're already close to this.)(and no, before you start, monopoly does not mean there are no alternatives, only that you have a market-penetration so high that your actions completely dominate the market.)
Next they'll do the same for email, instant messaging and all other much-used internet-protocols. Then they'll use this to gain an advantage in the server-market. Afterall, it's somewhat easier to be the server if you own all the clients. You can "extend" the protocols in arbitrary ways and force all competitors to play catch-up for example.
Next, after you control the personal computers and the servers, you go after the hardware. Since you choose to support only a certain platform, makers of all other platforms are bust.
Next you go for mobile phones. And pdas. You argue that yours will always "work better" with the PC, logically enough since you control the PC.
And so on.
Monopolies are bad for consumers, they increase prices ("monopoly-rent"), and decrease choise, quality and speed of development.
They are also bad for the economy. People pay "rent" to the monopolist instead of using the money to develop truly new products or to truly improve the existing ones.
Thus, it makes sense to have rules to regulate the powers of monopolies.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you can [microsoft.com]...
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't? So what's this [microsoft.com] then?
Now to be really unpopular (and get modded as a troll, happens every time I state this opinion). In my opinion, as someone who spent 2 years working with DRM (yea yea, hiss boo, burn the heretic), Microsoft's DRM was more "open". They give their SDK away, no licensing fees. I spent the last year trying to get Apple to provide the iTunes DRM code. Doesn't happen. As a third party the only way to produce Apple DRM music is to give control over distribution, pricing, bitrate, marketing and everything else to Apple. Microsoft just give you the SDK and you run with it however you like.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Informative)
why? because of monopolism or market dominance? not likely. as of november 2003 the ipod was the leader in portable digital music player with... 31%.
less than a third.
oh yeah, i have a source [com.com] for that number.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed, I'm typ
:20
ing this on my
microwave ove
n's browser rig
ht now, and th
ere's not a bund
led Microsoft app
anywhere BEEEEP
in the box. END
START
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the article it states that many media content companies are making files and movies available only in Windows Media Formats, because its the only Media player they know thats going to be on the system. Since a overwhelming of desktops use Windows, this is amounting to the fact that the market tends towards using Windows Media, and thus whats the point of getting other formats/players?
The commission is hoping to open up the media player market a little, only to allow more competition and "a fair go" for other media players/formats. People still have the choice of getting Windows Media with the OS, so this isn't really hurting anyone, just allowing for a free market.
On the issue of interoperability, there was this little gem-
Bolkestein warned that ordering Microsoft to reveal code, which is protected by copyright, and to a lesser extent by patents, could make the Commission vulnerable to a legal challenge by the company at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Im quite unclear on Bolkestein's motivation for that comment. Opening up the code to allow interoperability will not take away the fact that the code is Microsoft's, so Copyright is preserved. The commission isn't (as far as I can tell) letting competitor's simply copy MS's code so they can interoperate, but rather allow the code to be shown so they can code their own products to allow cleaner interoperability with MS's code. Any since patents are required to be published anyway, and need to be licenced, the patent comments is a non sequitur.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, IE has to come with the OS just so they can utilise the standard web browsing capability. To download new software they need to be able to get to the web sites, why would they download another browser if they already have one? If IE is not included, where are these people going to go to get their software? It will be like going back to the trumpet Winsock days.
Secondly, a fairly sizable number of web sites offering sound and video clips use WMP format files to deliver their content, the user will download WMP to be able to watch/listen.
The stripped down version of Windows has now become the full version through the wants of the user.
The only people who will buy the stripped down version of windows are probably the same people who use Linux/Mozilla/Thunderbird/OpenOffice, the only reason for them to change is to play games.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember when any PC you bought used to have an icon for AOL and compuserve, it would be just like that.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally see no special problem in an OS coming without a browser, without a mediaplayer, mail reader etc.
I personally think all these items atleast should not be installed by default, but installed if the user opts to do so during the installation.
They could also do it the way SuSE does: Default, Default with office, Custom, Minimal. There you go.
If they'd done that instead of making it part of the OS from 98 onwards, and allowed OEM/VAR's to install other mail, browser and media app's then this wouldn't have become a problem. But they choose to leverage their monopoly instead of competing - probably because they knew their products weren't the best (well it is true that IE 5 was the best browser around when it surfaced - it didn't take long for it to loose it's throne though, and it never did take it back).
I don't see why anyone can defend the status quo since it does harm competition, it does stiffle innovation and it does hurt us, the users/consumers.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it remind you of something ?
The official reason is that they bundle a default media player, just as they bundle a browser.
The non-official reason is that Microsoft is already decommoditizing madia files by implementing a file format that can only be red by WMP. If, as too many people here, you are sticking to the argument "Joe Average will need a media player and a browser, then let's MS do it", you should migrate back to Windows. Computers is
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple doesn't *have* a monopoly.
As far as I can tell, you have Sculley to thank for that. According to this anecdote [folklore.org] from a key Mac developer, Jobs wanted to sell the original Mac for about $1500 (up from his original target of $500, incidentally). It was Sculley who decided to charge the outrageous price of $2500, thus establishing the Mac tradition of paying WAY too much for relatively run-of-the-mill hardware.
And if they're willing to price-rape you while they're still just a single-digit market-share player, I imagine they wouldn't hesitate to stick it to you if they actually had influence to bring to bear.
Re:On the same note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
B) All Linux-distros have more than one media-player to choose from
C) All the media-players that come with Linux are in fact made by third-parties
D) You are not forced to install a media-player if you do not want one
E) If you do install a media-player, uninstalling it is easy
Why just EU? (Score:5, Funny)
Why just the EU? Why can't we all have access to the stripped down version?
Have you naked by the end of this song... (Score:5, Funny)
Because if you can't handle a one second shot of a bare nipple during the Super Bowl halftime show then I don't think you're ready for a stripped down anything.
Re:Have you naked by the end of this song... (Score:5, Funny)
Pathetic.
Re:Have you naked by the end of this song... (Score:5, Informative)
The nipple wasn't bare. She had a little sun around it.
Re:Have you naked by the end of this song... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why just EU? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, Microsoft's innovation to solve that problem could very well be to create some scheme to disable the software on US computers, and then say it's a DMCA violation to defeat that scheme...
This would be nice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This would be nice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Antivirus? (Score:3, Interesting)
Though yes, the AV does serve a much better purpose than RealPlayer and WMP and such...
Re:Antivirus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux, in a pure techical state, is nothing but a kernel. A kernel alone is pretty useless, so that's why there's there's shells to provide an interface. There are multiple choices for windowing systems, multiple choices for basic word processors, multiple choices for just about everything...
Now, replacement shells for the WinNT kernel are possible... but Microsoft doesn't sell a release of Windows that doesn't contain a shell, which is why most everybody is using Explorer and there aren't too many other shells in circulation. So, most people think that Explorer is an intrinsic part of Windows, but in reality, you can live without it if you had another.
Isn't that the atomic level of an operating system? Wouldn't that be the true level Windows should be required to strip down to if it's going to be unbundled from all other software?
media player from windows update (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:media player from windows update (Score:4, Insightful)
Far more likely is that MS will allow vendors to bundle it (or slipstream it onto recovery media) and most will do it. I wouldn't want to be the OEM that shipped a PC without media capabilities from the start. The support headache just wouldn't be worth it.
Re:media player from windows update (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:media player from windows update (Score:3, Insightful)
All windows are the same (Score:5, Interesting)
But in the end windows 2000 + XP nowadays really only differ by a few registry keys. Some programs can do the magic for you. Cough.... NTswitcher.... Cough.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
But...but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Will they sell it in other countries, or to customers who want it? Back during the Netscape/IE fiasco, I read one of Microsoft's supporters say "customers must buy what is sold to them, not what they want". Uh huh. Right now Linux has exactly what I want, and I don't even have to pay for it. Beat that, MS!
Re:But...but.. (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder how Apple made OSes before Quicktime was invented.
Re:But...but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But...but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I don't really see what Slashdot finds so hard to understand about this. Unintegrating IE now is, quite simply, impossible. Microsoft didn't lie when they said that was the case
Do you guys have any idea at all of how many apps expect Internet Explorer and related DLLs to be installed? Working on Wine brings this point home in a really fundamental way.
Oh sure. You could remove iexplore.exe. That would remove like 0.1% of IE from your system. It'd be a pretty hollow gesture.
I'm not just talking about things like the MSHTML component. I'm talking about things like the SHLWAPI DLL - a utility library which wraps the Win32 API to some extent developed by the IE team partly to make portability between Win31, Win2K and Win98 simpler. It's only half documented, a lot of the functions are exported only by ordinal, yet a surprising number of programs expect it to be there.
What about the URL monikers implementation? What about all the installers that assume the presence of Favourites? What about all the programs that embed the Trident engine to render parts of their UI, their online help - in the case of one game that shall remain nameless even the games main menu!
Windows shipped without Internet Explorer would effectively break so many apps nobody would buy it, even if they could. Quite a lot of apps don't even complain, they just crash. Win95 not supported.
Now, this stuff is mostly academic. Shipping Windows without IE on the desktop would have made a difference - 5 years ago. Nowadays many (most?) people have never heard of Netscape, think that the Internet is the blue E icon, and so on.
The only way IE will ever disappear in other words is when Linux starts kicking Windows' ass on the desktop, which last I checked was still a year or two away just on the corporate desktop let alone the home user desktop.
just wmp? (Score:5, Insightful)
really? didn't know an operating system needed a media player to work correctly.
unless for some reason other applications integrated wmp, in which case offering wmp as a seperate download is just as good. it annoys me when they make such dubious claims.
Re:just wmp? (Score:5, Insightful)
Without defending the MS design decisions, they elected to provide certain audio and video playback capabilities by incorporating WMP code "into the OS." Some of the design decisions were driven by the choice to give application developers services at the level of "play the audio stream in this file and notify me when it's done." The OS service makes all the choices about codecs and drivers and moving data in a timely manner. Given that choice (and some of the known problems with scheduling and such on some Windows variants), it seems inevitable that there would be OS code that looked like a media player. A simple media player "app" then becomes little more than a frame and a few buttons -- all the hard parts are done by the OS services.
Linux and other UNIX-like OSs made a different set of design decisions. Low-level audio support tends to live in the OS, video support tends to live in user space (although that might not be true if X didn't live there). At this point in time, it seems more reasonable to assume that a consumer-oriented OS would have audio and video services available for the app developers, than to assume not.
Re:just wmp? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect rivals would be happier if they had a real opportunity to compete with MS on the player/codec side where they didn't have to convince users to get rid of WMP first whether it be getting rid of the whole thing or just the interface. It's like someone else said though, every time you change something on XP you seem to get Outlook Express, Messenger, and WMP back in the menus and desktop and reclaiming the default app position.
Re:just wmp? (Score:5, Insightful)
The hooks are designed for use by any codec. Media Player doesn't only play WMV or WMA files - it'll handle anything you write a codec for. There are only two companies who don't write generic codecs that will work happily inside Windows with no external player application; one company is called Apple, the other is called Real Networks.
Look at DivX - that works quite happily inside Windows Media Player. As do most MPEG codecs used by things like Intervideo WinDVD. It's only the companies who require that you use their "skin" around the codec for marketing and branding purposes who seem to have a problem with playing nicely with Windows.
Re:just wmp? (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows is not just (even?) an operating system - it's a monopolized distribution method for all the associated media and proprietary file formats.
Case in point, even though Internet Explorer is so lacking in security and features compared to any modern browser(tabs?), it is used by the massive majority of Windows users because they don't realise that a browser is NOT a part of the O/S and so don't seek an alternative.
The european governments don't have cosy relationships with Redmond. Et voila!
Remember Windows 98 Lite? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Remember Windows 98 Lite? (Score:4, Informative)
Those same guys [litepc.com] have, after many moons of hard work, managed to pull the same sort of trick with 2000 and XP.
Didn't we try this once before? (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict that a future version of windows will integrate sound and video into the interface. Making Media Player the new file-navigator, with animated talking program icons or some such.
Probably will call it WindowsMediaExplorer.
Re:Didn't we try this once before? (Score:4, Insightful)
"files" are passe. its relations... memories and information that people want. it does not need to be flat.
I see the future! said the flatlander.
Nice try, no banana (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why shouldn't a desktop management system utilize an 128 MB graphics card?" Let's see:
1. Because it's a straw man argument. You can use all the fancy graphics you want to, even without being a web-browser tied into the very operating system. You can write the exact same Windows file- and/or desktop-manager in user space, _without_ making it a web browser, and it will work just as well. In fact, heck, you can even make your full 3D real-time manager, one that even _needs_ a DirectX 10 graphics card, and it still won't need to be a web browser, nor to be intimately tied into the OS itself.
Noone says that need to go back to a command line prompt. You can have your relations, memories and information, or whatever else, and you can have them presented with as much fancy graphics as you want to. All I'm saying is: there is _no_ real reason why the drawing program _has_ to be a web browser, and there is _no_ real reason why it can't be replaceable with other programs that do the same thing.
2. Because it doesn't need to. All that a file/desktop manager like Windows uses is some 2D and font acceleration. That's all. There is no real need to use 3D texture-mapped environment-bump-mapped pixel-shaded full-screen-antialiased anisotropic-filtered graphics just to display a list of files, nor to paint a border around a window. We're talking a relatively primitive 2D app, not a FPS game.
3. That goes double for the codecs and media playing capabilities. There is no way in heck to say you need streaming video codec hooks into the very OS itself... to make a file or desktop manager. How and where the heck would that file or desktop manager even use those codecs? For what? Unless it's going to have DivX movies instead of icons, there is exactly _zero_ need for it to even know what a codec is.
(Just in case someone wants to jump in with a stupidity like "it needs codecs to play the media files when you double-click them": *bzzzt* Wrong answer. What happens when you double-click a file is launching an external application which knows what to do with the file. A media player app for WMA files, Word for
Easy workaround for MS. (Score:3, Funny)
That should do an end run on the EU.
Why the EC and not the US? (Score:4, Interesting)
Monti may also demand that Microsoft itself should propose "within a few months of a ruling" what Windows computer code it should reveal in order to make the operating system fully interoperable with rival software makers' programs for servers
Long overdue in my opinion, Microsoft is bundling way too much s&*^ together these days. They've built their entire market strategy around this idea; Just try to ask your Microsoft rep about any one product. The conversation may start with InfoPath, Sharepoint, Office, whatever, but will undoubtedly end up with discussions on Server 2003, MS SQL, Exchange, Commerce Server, ad infinitum until you have seen every single, poorly designed intertwined product they own. The truth is, Microsoft is right - their products only work well with each other.
I already have the source code anyway
Last August the Commission told Microsoft that its practice of bundling Media Player into Windows amounted to an abuse of the operating system's dominant position because it placed rival music and video players at a disadvantage.
Since I have never opened Media Player on my Windows box, I have no idea what sense Microsoft's position makes... Although their crowd control, err DRM, may not work properly.
Re:Why the EC and not the US? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is so true it hurts.
Anecdote begin
Back when Windows 2000 was about to be released, I had a big problem with a NT server. I was in a newspaper - a multi-platform shop that happens to have a daily deadline. Besides the PCs running Windows for business functions, there were lots of Macs in the creative and news rooms, along with various other servers on other OSes in the data centre. Anyway, the NT machines (fully patched and updated) kept on corrupting the Servies For Mac file index - and I kept on trying to rebuild it. I called MS support for $200 (or whatever it was) and complained about this problem, and even had an idea for them to pursue in order to possibly get a quick solution. After the "Let me ask my colleague" response from the MS techie, he forgot to turn off the mic. I overheard his colleague snidely remark "Tell him to ditch the Macs. Haha". I knew then that I wasn't about to get any help, since my company had the unmittigated gaul to use Macs instead of Windows.
I bought a server operating system from them for tidy sum, and they were making a joke about wanting to use something else besides thier OS for the clients of that server. Never mind the millions invested in Apple hardware, software, training and methods - they made a joke about thier OS holding up a deadline. To boot, I got the "Upgrade to 2000 when it comes out, SFM is 10X better" line. Nice, since all of the NT boxes were DEC Alphas, for which Windows 2000 support had just been pulled. They wanted me to spend millions in "upgrades", in order to fix a bug in their code. And I paid for the privilege of having them tell me that.
Microsoft earned my eternal scorn that day.
Rant^WAnecdote end.
Microsoft has gotten very, very arrogant - to the point that they believe that no one else on the planet is capable of a good idea. They make some good products to be sure, but whenever and wherever I can, I push OSS solutions ahead of Microsoft solutions, so I can still pick and choose what tools I deploy with a minimum of fuss about whose product that tool is. RedHat 7.2 is still a nice OS on an old AlphaServer 3305, and it doesn't discriminate as to what OS it provides services for. It just does exactly what you ask it to, and asks for precious little in return.
Soko
Re:Why the EC and not the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) our high speed internet penetration is pathetic
2) what high speed internet there is, is in the hands of our local monopolistic telecom
3) Media streaming requires high speed connection
4) monopoly profits MS reaps ends up being Taxed in the US quite nicely
5) MS pays nice amounts of money to people getting elected
6) MS gives all kinds of free stuff to US schools
While in college I purchased my copy of win2k, winXP, Office, and frontpage for $5 each. I was then given Visual
This is a bad idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. No one will buy this.
It won't hurt MS one bit. They will jump at the first chance to get rid of this product. The question then becomes, how long can the courts force MS to make a product available, when no one is buying it? More importantly, why? Will it really address the issues?
Re:This is a bad idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
DOS 6.2 contained DoubleSpace which was ruled to have infringed on patents that were held by the maker of another drive-compression software called Stacker. As a result, Microsoft was required to release MS-DOS 6.21, a version that didn't contain DoubleSpace and had no other functional changes. What's more, they were also required to put out a step-up disk that'd upgrade 6.2 users to 6.21, all it did was delete the infinging program and upgrade command.com to report as the new version number, and price it at $10.
I remember seeing the step-up disk at Staples. It was in a small cardboard box with the front torn off, and the least attractive packing for a 1-disk program ever. No manual, just a small mailer-like wrapper around the individual disk. The store had only one box of 10 out, and it was shoved off to the side.
Microsoft didn't want to put this product out, nobody sane wanted to buy it... and it all showed.
BTW, the patent issue was later resolved in the typical Microsoft way. They settled the lawsuits by buying the company. MS-DOS 6.22 quickly came out, with the new patent-worry-free DriveSpace software, that did exactly the same thing DoubleSpace did with a few interface tweaks.
If I were in EU, I'd buy the US version (Score:3, Insightful)
I am worried how EU will enforce that the stripped down version work the same way as the other one.
Missing the mark (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides as given categories of software become ubiqitous people start expecting more things to come with the OS. MS would probably have to bundle a browser and a media player even if destroying Netscape and Real weren't on their minds at all. Now they need to bundle a firewall and an AV scanner to protect the rest of the net from their own customers.
The true factors that give their monopoly power are secret OEM agreements and undocumented protocols and file formats. Breaking them up won't necessarily fix those and neither will dictating what MS can and can't ship with their OS. Take away the gun away from vendor's heads and document the formats and protocols. Their source code is not needed, wanted, or even particularly useful. It would have to be reverse engineered for those specs anyway.
so.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its all about... (Score:3, Interesting)
b) and keeping open-interfaces(even if not open src), so that other players can easily integrate their products into windows.
now how tough (or harmful) can that be ? (both a question and statement)
additions/mods to the list welcome...
It seems nothing short of total domination will satisfy microsoft... yet somehow that seems to be the only way to make money
Shift the crap to Plus! (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is when they use their monopoly of the operating system to pretty much require you to use their version of the software or when they use the monopoly to make their product inheirently better.
For example in windows if you go into the control panel and open up internet options will it configure your Mozilla browser? Can you setup your help file system to use a different default renderer for it's html files? Or my favorite your pretty much required to keep IE installed so you can use Windows Update to get the almost daily CRITICAL updates for their buggy software.
The media player isn't going to be quite the versatile system component that an HTML renderer is but there are still going to be a lot of applications that end up using it and they won't have much choice thanks to tie-ins like properitary windows media formats.
The sad thing is that Gates isn't lying when he says he's making this stuff a central part of the operating system. Clearly linux is following suit with it's own html renderers. The problem is that with Microsoft they never give the user any options to say "hey thanks for making html such an intergal part of my computing expierence now let me use X product instead of your sucky component please".
Pfft (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I'd trust anything written by a site which says this in its other articles:
"Microsoft - Get the facts on Microsoft(R) Windows(R) and Linux. Click here. Why pay more for Linux than Microsoft(R) Windows(R)? Through a variety of tests and comparisons, major third-party research and analysis firms found Windows to be less expensive than Linux in the long run. Read all the studies and see for yourself. Click here to get the facts."
At least the EU has a spine (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I'm from the US.
Stripped Down? (Score:3, Insightful)
Other Microsoft Drivel in XP (Score:3, Insightful)
Source code? Why Bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea here is to allow Quicktime, Real (ugh), etc to compete fairly.
I think the only real solution here is to make Media Player an optional install (it's not yet required by the OS, even if it is tied in firmly) and to not allow MS to force OEMs to install it/not install others. At this point other companies will be able to get their media players installed at the OEM level, ensuring them the same level of competition.
Although, for the record, my new Dell laptop came with MediaPlayer, Real, Quicktime, and some Dell Media thing. So I don't see the issue here, other than being unable to remove MediaPlayer. If I could remove MediaPlayer I don't think there would be an issue.
And I would like to thank everyone who made it possible for me to have a bunch of additional media player software packages to block on my firewall. grr.
Another shot at the free market (Score:4, Insightful)
You can argue all you want that it's because they have a monopoly but you'd be conveniently ignoring facts. Why do people use Windows XP? It's not relatively stable, but its stable enough for the average user and more importantly: It's user friendly. No Linux distro can compete with that level ease, and Apple is too expensive.
If you take out these components you're not only just pissing off Microsoft (which may be a laudable goal) but the millions of users who LOVE having everything in one nice package. But hey, at least that tiny minority of competetitors will get make some nice profit, right?
Make a significantly better product and communicate this to your target market. Do this, and you'll win. It happened with A & P Grocers (80% of the market was theirs, and they eventually went bankrupt for not responding to market trends) and it can happen with Microsoft. Don't hide behind litigation
Re:Another shot at the free market (Score:4, Interesting)
Bah, they solved the equation of download Kazaa and leech mp3 files. Kazaa isn't included with Windows. At least enough users did to make it an international problem.
What are you saying -- that users are sitting with IE, having no clue on what to do else with their computers than typing in Wordpad and playing Minesweeper?
But hey, at least that tiny minority of competetitors will get make some nice profit, right?
Did you consider why they're a tiny minority today? If they'd be able to compete, did you consider how much better the software would be today? Monopoly is never a good thing for technology advancement.
Make a significantly better product and communicate this to your target market. Do this, and you'll win.
Nope, and that's the problem! Opera is surely a more feature rich product (and still simple to use), still it's in extreme minority. Mozilla has what, 3% of the browser market? Does this go in line with how powerful the software is? No. It doesn't even help that Mozilla is also offered for free.
Re:Another shot at the free market (Score:3, Insightful)
"Tiny minority" was in relatively terms. There may be thousands of people working for competetitors, but millions of people will be hurt by this judgement. Microsofts fictitious monopoly isn't powerful at all. Why is Winamp so prevalent? Wh
Re:Another shot at the free market (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement boggles the mind. You yourself are conveniently brushing aside a very important fact. We're dealing with the abuse of a monopoly here.
The point that Windows works well enough for a majority of people in the market is a good one. But that's just one of the issues here. It's not just about an OS - this isn't all about Windows. It's about leveraging Windows to push other technical components (and to some extent, visa-versa).
Welcome to the real world. You'll find here that the better product doesn't always win. In fact, within the technology sector, you'll find a whole graveyard of superior technology that failed.
Here in the real world you've got to deal with business issues such as marketing, bundling, partnerships, etc. Then there's that whole monopoly thing. You remember that? The little detail you were eager to brush aside earlier?
Its hard to do anything in a market already dominated by a monopoly willing to abuse their position. That "hide behind litigation" action you mentioned is what happens when the law has to step in and attempt to rememdy the situation created by this abuse.
I like the overall theme of the post: competition. However, you're holding up the wrong end of the scale. Microsoft is no champion for competition.
Problem in Implimentation (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU is simply being stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider a rather odd but apt example that illustrates why. Suppose one company, Microcar, manufactured 90% of the cars in the world. Suppose that they were trying to dominate radio broadcasting by including in each of their cars a free radio that would only receive broadcasts that used their technology. Would it make any difference if the EU required them to sell cars with and without this free radio?
Of course it wouldn't. The radio is free, so customers would say, "Well, I might as well get the version with it." And Microcar would help that process along by hinting, using their usual FUD tactics, that the radio-free car wouldn't be quite as reliable. It could leave you stranded on some lonely mountain road.
There's only one solution that makes sense. Require Microsoft to work with competing technologies (Real and QuickTime) and ship with Windows versions of those technologies that are as stable and well-integrated as WMA.
If the EU isn't willing to do that, justifying it by Microsoft's monopoly position, then they should drop this issue and look the other way when Microsoft uses its OS dominance to crush their competition in this and other areas.
--Mike Perry
http://www.InklingBooks.com/
Stripped down? (Score:4, Funny)
Someone Please - Mod the article +5 Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have such a short memory that you don't remember what I'm referring to, google for articles describing the shennanigans at the most Microsoft AntiTrust hearings.
EU to Microsoft: We hereby require you to prove once and for all that you undeniably committed perjury when you claimed in court at the recent US anti-trust hearings that a stripped down Microsoft OS could not be produced.
This should be at the manufacturer level... (Score:3, Interesting)
There needs to be pricing protection, (Unusual, and illegal unless you have been found to be a monopoly), for the competitors so there needs to be some fee for the microsoft add-on pack. And there cannot be discounting below some floor, and no tie-ins to any sort of percentage of sales for shared marketing dollars.
The retail pack (upgrade and new) can include whatever microsoft wants to include.
Just removing it is penalizing the customer by insisting he go through extra steps what he needs. And where does it stop? Browser? IM client? FTP client? File Explorer? Notepad? Calculator? GDI???? Direct X?
Let the manufacturers create demand for competitive software, by allowing them to customize the user experience. This will be good for the consumer, and create competition for all parts of the system. Including keeping Microsoft on its toes. Instead of a worse experience for the consumer, create a better one the old fashioned way, competition. Make Dell compete with IBM and HP and Gateway not mearly over distribution and manufacturing, but on the actual experience the user gets. Each trying to outdo the other. Some incredibly simple systems for kids, some business oriented models, the media model, the scientific model, etc... There may be the microsoft branded stuff, a sony suite, The IBM suite, the cow machine... This is what was broken by the microsoft monopoly, it seems this is the way to fix it.
Include even more options? (Score:3, Interesting)
What MS should be made to do: (Score:5, Informative)
2.Make MSN messenger something that you can choose to install or choose not to install (i.e. if you dont want it, you can choose not to install it and install another messenger or no messenger at all)
3.Completly open up the Windows Media Player codec layer such that anyone can write WMP codecs and anyone can use those codecs in their app (making it so that e.g. games can use the codecs for displaying full-screen video clips or playing game audio would be a nice thing also, I dont know if its already possible or not)
4.Detatch the Windows Media Player UI from windows and from the codecs and make it an optional install.
5.Force microsoft to have one OEM price and one OEM contract. Anyone that wants windows OEM can buy at the same price (as long as they are bundling with a PC, they qualify for OEM price).
6.MS not able to dictate what OEMs can/cant do.
For example, let OEMs install whatever they want alongside windows (i.e. Linux, Mozilla or whatever else)
7.Publish all the communications protocols used by anything that comes on the windows CD under a clear "anyone can use this with no restrictions" licence. Also, publish all of their various data storage formats under the same sort of licence (e.g. NTFS filesystem specs, MS office document formats, MS media files, regular and HTML help document files,
That way, anyone can talk to/use their HTML renderer, internet DLLs and whatever else.
Also, it would (presumably) allow one to write a new HTML renderer (e.g. based on gecko) that could replace the MS one.
8.Force MS to unbundle Outlook Express, publish all the data formats that OE uses to store stuff, etc etc etc. (so that other mail programs can be used instead if you want to)
8.Force MS to completly implement the current W3C standards for HTML, XML and such. This includes complete support for ALL parts of formats like PNG
9.MS not allowed to use patents to protect their monopoly in the OS space (for example, cant use patents on
and 10.MS not allowed to use influence to try and spread products inside EU (e.g. applying pressure to governments/corps who are trying to decide between windows and linux)
These are all important but the most important IMO is point 7 (i.e. the "open all their secrets" thing) since that will level the playingfield as far as competitors go.
For example, Mozilla will be able to talk MS server authentication on all platforms, with no licence conditions or strings attatched.
And things like Linux and ReactOS will have full information to be able to read NTFS file systems.
And so on.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Say all the article is accurate and all they are taking out is IE, WMP, ms messenger and outlook express... for each of these programs there are better alternatives out there that are free.
IE = Firefox
WMP = Mplayer (w32 binary is available) for movies, winamp for audio
ms messenger = gaim
outlook express = thunderbird
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the software isn't included, MS will just have a link on the desktop saying "Enable the World Wide Web", "Enable your Email" or "Chat to your friends instantly!", when clicked on will download a fluffy installer and install the modules to get it back to the full version.
This ruling, if it goes against MS, won't really change much. All it will do is make the EU feel good about themselves...
Re:So the choice is (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd much rather see interoperability improved by forcing Microsoft to publish some code that is need for better operability within the OS by third-party products.
The selling of a media-player less Windows is not a very well-thought out idea. Its great idealistically, but not very practically.
Easy way to sell bundled version - Sell both products at the same price, or about $5 dollars difference at most. Advertise one as standard, and one as a "Deluxe" version with latest, greatest Medi
Re:I assume (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a solution that'd force that to happen, and it's happened several times in history... the company's divisions are forced to split into stand-alone companies that aren't allowed to collude. The division that are in competitve fields must fen
Re:I assume (Score:4, Interesting)
And long distance is much much cheaper than it ever was in 1984...
See, long distance was the profitable service that subsidized the landlines. When the prices were adjusted to reflect the actual costs of the services, local loops were more expensive, and the competed-for long distance fell to the floor.
We never were able to sucessfully get local loop competition to happen again. The ILEC/CLEC model is trying, but most of the initial stand-alone ILECs have gone bust, and nobody's stringing additional copper networks where there already is one. Some things are just meant to be monopolies, and the only thing to do is to regulate them so they don't get abusive...
one word, CONVICTED monopolist (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What About Others? (Score:4, Informative)
No, it certainly isn't. You are misunderstanding anti-trust, and people modding you up seem to be misunderstanding it as well.
Anti-trust legislation deals with using an existing monopoly to increase your market share in other areas. Apple is not a monopoly, and there is no law against vertically integrated solutions. When apple bundles a media player, their media player is not suddenly dominant in the world of media players.
Microsoft on the other hand basically has a monopoly on desktop operating systems (if you want to run a very common range of applications, your only choice is often Microsoft).
It means that when Microsoft decides to bundle an application, this application becomes dominant in it's market unless it really, really stinks (read Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player).
Apples bundling takes their applications to 1-2% of the market. Microsofts take their applications to 90-95% of the market. It is the last problem that antitrust tries to help against (very unsuccesfully if I might add).
A free Linux solution can never be a monopoly because everyone is free to distribute them as they see fit.