Microsoft Chided Over Exclusive Music Idea 331
grumpyman writes "The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement."
Suuuure (Score:4, Funny)
Possible responses from the judge:
- Greg
Re:Suuuure (Score:5, Insightful)
Ballmer?
Re:Suuuure (Score:5, Funny)
No, he said "Low Level"... Not "Neanderthal".
Re:Suuuure (Score:2)
"Your Honor, appropriate disciplinary action has been taken, and the individual in question is no longer a low-level business with Microsoft!"
Translation: He's been promoted. Twice.
Reminds me of teenage sex (Score:3, Funny)
You know, when you're new to it all and shy about asking and you kind of hedge your bets.
"Ha ha ha. No, I'm just kidding."
"...unless you think it's a good idea, that is."
Of course (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
I can hear it now... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I can hear it now... (Score:2)
See, we hired this guy using our (patented) hiring process which entails answering a bunch of clever puzzle questions and IQ tests and also tested how much system minutiae he could remember after being exposed to it for thirty seconds. Our typical "geek moron employment" process.
But we didn't test his ability to reason or understand the law. That's not our policy. We don't want anyone working for us who has either scruples or common sense.
We want coders and liars - that's it.
"lower-level business person" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"lower-level business person" (Score:3, Funny)
Actaull Job title: Scapegoat.
Your jobs is to be blames for all "mistakes" that we make and get caught for. Depending on the size of the mistake you could get fired, but we will leave a good reference for you. Just as long as you don't work for and competition.
"Microsoft regrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:2)
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Which makes you wonder what Microsoft will be doing once those clauses of their settlement expires in 2008. Perhaps what they're really regreting is the manager letting the cat out of the bag before they could legally do it.
Doesn't matter. Antitrust law doesn't expire in 2007, only close government supervision does. If anyone thinks that this expiration means the end of Microsoft's antitrust woes, they need to think again. The reason is something called collateral estoppel. Basically all those facts decided as a necessary part of that portion of the case not overturned on appeal is beyond relitigation. I.e. in any future antitrust suit, Microsoft cannot say "We were never a predatory monopoly." The best they can say is "We are not a monopoly any more" or maybe "what we are accused of doing is not predatory." I.e. the litigation changes from establishing facts to establishing *changes* of facts since they were established.
What this means is that the whole point of the antitrust case against microsoft was the judgement that Microsoft both was a monopoly and had broken antitrust law in maintaining it. The exact details of the judgement are largely irrelevant. Indeed had Microsoft been broken up, it would have been *easy* to argue that facts had changed "Yes, Microsoft was a monopoly, your honor, but we were broken up and so the facts from the prior case no longer apply." THe fact that they are largely allowed to continue doing business as usual is *not* a good thing or a light punishment for Microsoft. Indeed it is largely a declaration that it is open season on Microsoft from an antitrust litigation point of view (in that the bar has been lowered to a rediculously low level for such claims, including continuing violations).
Already there are over 100 antitrust suits against them winding their way though a multidistrict panel including Novell v. Microsoft, Go v. Microsoft and countless more. The antitrust settlement might be a minor cut to Microsoft, but it is a cut that occurs in waters populated by a large number of man-eating sharks. Sucks to be Microsoft. Which is one reason I no longer work there.
I enjoyed your comment. (Score:2)
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:5, Interesting)
You are right. Having a monopoly isn't something the government can regulate; being a monopoly is not against the law. Companies can't just sue another company for being successful. It is only when Microsoft engages in unfair business practices where they use the advantages of their monopoly status that it becomes an issue of antitrust. But whether to sue them under antitrust laws is up to the government, specifically the attorney general (antitrust is a civil matter, not a criminal one).
That largely depends on the administration in office. Sure future antitrust violations will be dealt with more harshly. If they never get sued by the government, the only thing that'll happen is that they'll pay some large sum in fines to a bunch of small or already-dead companies and go about their merry way. And even if the DOJ does get involved, well Microsoft received a large fine the last time, setting the precedent to fine them even more (yes, it can be argued that fines aren't enough, but then again, that was argued for this case too and Microsoft was still largely fined). Anyhow, this administration is likely not going to act and we know little to nothing about the next one. Yet the settlement conveniently expires before then. By the time the next administration comes around to suing them again for unfair business practices, they'd have bought up all the so-called victims and the prosecution wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on except for Microsoft's history. And all Microsoft would need to ask then in defense is where the prosecution's witnesses are.
Once they're out from under the microscope, it doesn't give them free reign to do as they please, but it does loosen their chains considerably.
Already there are over 100 antitrust suits against them winding their way though a multidistrict panel
And there have been countless antitrust suits and unfair business practices suits before that. What really is litigation to Microsoft? Just part of the cost of doing business. Microsoft has been engaged in this business model for a very long time. Everyone sues Microsoft. Microsoft either settles with them for some amount of money, or loses, and is fined some amount of money. To Microsoft, these fines and suits are looked at like their utility bills.
Which is one reason I no longer work there.
I would work for Google too if given the choice. They get free food.
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, get with the times. They're not music players or mp3 players any more, they're iPod-like devices. [slashdot.org]
Blame Management! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blame Management! (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Especially if this person is responsible for these kinds of deals, shouldn't an understanding of the anti-trust settlement restrictions be a requirement for this position?
Re:Blame Management! (Score:2)
The good old days at MS (Score:5, Funny)
When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2)
I just noticed this today and it pissed me off. It didn't used to rename the files (they might have been truncated a bit, but you could still see what they were). Now they all have meaningless (to me) filenames when on the ipod. I went to take an mp3 off my ipod today to put on my Linux box, but was upset to find that I wasn't able to find the song I wanted because I couldn't differentiate one from another. Good ol' Limewire came to the rescue though.
Frustrating.
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2)
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2)
I highly recomend the program. Uses a GUI and has a pretty easy to use (and fast!) rename system.
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2)
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
MP3 players (Score:2)
Now.
Take your desktop computer, with all its resources, and scrunch it down into a device that'll fit into your pocket.
The deal is, it's easier to "cache" the ID3 tags into a "database" (sorry if I'm using technical terms here) and have a small "embedded device" use the database for song information. And, since you need a computer to move those songs
Re:MP3 players (Score:2)
Re:MP3 players (Score:2)
And for God's sake, use a flat text file to store the index so anyone can write a program to update it
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2)
-Charles
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2)
I understand the American versions have some differences, but I woudn't know what the
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2)
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:2)
As for Apple, they'll never change, and it won't hurt them a bit. Apple's that good at marketing and making sure the masses want what they have. "Kick me harder!
of course... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:of course... (Score:2)
Perhaps Ballmer's been demoted to portable music Wunderkind.
Are you fucking kidding me? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't care what they say... (Score:2, Funny)
This is not a moral judgement anymore... on a technical basis, do they have something I want? yes.
BTW, I reboot my Windows boxes every month or so, whether they need it or not. Just Because.
Re:I don't care what they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you fucking kidding me? (Score:2, Funny)
did not understand? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:did not understand? (Score:5, Funny)
Simpler explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simpler explanation (Score:2)
Re:Simpler explanation (Score:2)
Nice work judge, now what about OpenDocument? (Score:4, Insightful)
Culpability (Score:4, Interesting)
How many questionable actions have slipped through because the competitors have been strong-armed (due to business relations with MS) or bought off?
This happens to be an area where MS has valid competition who have a large interest in making sure MS doesn't leverage their OS dominance... what happens in areas where the competition doesn't have the legal resources to monitor MS & to file complaints?
Not to bash MS, but really now... Gates & co are making a good case for the idea that they need to be monitored past 2007, and that perhaps the previous settlement wasn't enough.
The fact of the matter is that whether it was Gates or Ballmer or some new lackey, they were acting in official capacity as an employee of MS. It is the responsibility of those in charge to make sure no one in the organization could take illegal action. And should the court take action (which the judge said she won't), the execs at MS should be held liable by their shareholders.
MRD (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they would say that, woudn't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies [wikipedia.org]
In defense of MS (Score:5, Informative)
My point is that Microsoft is not the immense evil company that they are made out to be. The people that work here are not trying to rip you off. They are not sabotaging their software. They take pride in thier work. We have copies of different linux builds lying around and some people even use Macs here. Seeing the way things work here, when Balmer says he has not thrown a chair, I believe him. Every last employee and most vendors here have IMMENSE amounts of freedom in their jobs. Microsoft hires people that present an air of trustworthyness. They want to be able to hire people, assign them a task, and be confident that the person they hired will be able to complete the task in the most efficient and responsible way possible.
In reference to this article that obviously did not happen. Somebody was entrusted with a certain amount of authority and they misused it. Please realize that Microsoft as a company is not some huge evil organization out to rape your wallets. They are regular people who want to, like anyone else, do the best job they can.
Re:In defense of MS (Score:2, Insightful)
The majority of the individual employees probably are as you say.
That still doesn't change the fact that Microsoft as a company *is* a huge organization out to rape our wallets. In the current business/legal climate it almost has to be, in order to not be sued by the shareholders.
A Tale of Two Microsoft's (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much every thing you say is true. To a point. It is true that Microsoft is a place where one can generally have a lot of freedom on how you do your job and you only find out once a year that the management thinks several of your most important contributions were wastes of time (a more common complaint than you might think), and that in general, it was a fairly satisfying place to work. It is true that people take a lot of pride in their work, and that most of the people there, especially those in product development, are primarily interested in making quality software, though whether they succeed or not is another question.
The problem, however, is that there is also an odd sense of mean-spiritedness which exists as a hidden undercurrent at the company. It does not come out in every employee, and I think that the GM of my department through most of the time I was there was probably the least mean-spirited guy I have enver seen in any company, but it is a part of the corporate culture. You would not believe how many Microsoft employees might ordinarily vode democrat but voted to elect Sen. Gordon simply because Cantwell was coming from a competing company (Real Networks). Never mind the fact that she might actually understand the industry. One guy even told me that he could not in good conscience vote to elect an executive from a competitor to public office. And you would not beleive the flack I got because before I was hired, I had migrated my parents to a Linux desktop and did not want to bring them back into the fold of Microsoft software (yes they still run Linux, and no they are not nerds or techies).
Similarly, the level of mean-spiritedness I watched seemed to go up as one ascended the management chain though there were plenty of exceptions. I knew several people who ended up in GM positions who really were great people to work for and with, and were entirely procompetitive. Sadly I also saw many more people who were fundamentally meanspirited (even if they did not at first appear this way) who were promoted as well.
Now, I was not ill-informed as to the nature of this aspect of Microsoft corporate culture when I was hired. I had read essentially all of the court documents both regarding Caldera v. Microsoft and USDoJ v. Microsoft. And I largely accepted the employement at first due to the fact that I did not have another job lined up when my term came to an end. In other words, it was clear to me that a large percentage of senior execs (including Gates and Ballmer) were of this category of employees, and that this was a large part of what catylized this attitude in the company.
During my time at Microsoft, I worked tirelessly to improve Microsoft software and business practices. My contributions were nearly all procompetitive. Among ideas first floated by me:
1) One has to stop thinking of Exchange and Sendmail as competitors (as a result of this email, a POP3 server was added to Windows Server 2003).
2) If you are going to Linuxworld, at least take the one product (SFU) that Linux guys might find interesting.
3) SFU should ship with the operating system.
4) If you can't provide SSH, at least provide a telnet server which uses Kerberos to encrypt the session (don't know the status on this one, but I believe it may be forthcoming)
I don't know where my other suggestions so I will not mention them here. However, I will say that I had suggested a very aggressive competitive approach aimed at materially reducing the number of safe markets for Linux and FreeBSD. I would not be surprised if Microsoft continues to impliment other suggestions I made.
Re:A Tale of Two Microsoft's (Score:2)
Re:A Tale of Two Microsoft's (Score:2)
1) It's mildly embaressing, also they want to push their own management tools
2) It's monopolistic, extending their control and basically snuffing out ssh.com and other commercial SSH providers. They got in trouble for this type of behavior remember?
Re:In defense of MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately that job they are working so hard at is to rape our wallets, for the benefit of their stockholders.
The fact that the company is comprised of people doing the best they can is not really a valid argument against the idea that Microsoft is a huge evil organization. In fact, I would imagine that most, if not all, huge evil organizations are filled with regular people doing the best they can.
Re:In defense of MS (Score:2)
Wake up, dude. That's the sole purpose of a corporation. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
In Anglo-American jurisdictions, business corporations are generally required to serve the best interests of the shareholders, a rule that courts have generally interpreted to mean the maximization of share value, and thus profits. Corporate directors are prohibited by corporate law from sacrificing profits to serve some other interest, such as environmental protection, or the imp
Re:In defense of MS (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice people do that all the time, they really do!
Glad to see Microsoft's H1-B program is working (Score:5, Funny)
Well, now we know the ethnicity of the low-level intern.
Re:Glad to see Microsoft's H1-B program is working (Score:2, Funny)
Corporate tool (Score:3, Interesting)
I still haven't seen anyone with an iPod, but I've had a Neuros and I know someone with an Archos. Unless you're being paid to publicize that one company's antiquated product (fuckin' A, it can't even play modern codecs like Vorbis), then there's no reason to shill for it.
Scary... (Score:2, Insightful)
The quote says more than I think they intended.
-Coach
Corporate culture (Score:3, Interesting)
> practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal
> to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to
> Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed
> the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person"
> who did not understand the company's obligations under
> the antitrust settlement.
This points out well why Microsoft can't be trusted in these anti-trust settlements. Microsoft's view is that proposals like this are only a problem in that they violate the anti-trust settlement terms. In reality, they are a problem in that they violate the intent of the anti-trust laws.
MS expects its employees to work tirelessly to skirt the edge of the anti-trust laws, and build up its defacto monopoly. They can't accept into the corporate culture that attempting to force use of MS software through restrictive licensing agreements is not an acceptable business practice, -even if- you can do it without contravening the strict letter of the law.
Frm the referenced article: 'The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."'
I would not describe it as a "chink"; I would describe it as a gap in which Microsoft is unwilling to comply with any settlement agreement to any greater degree than they can be compelled to by threat of force.
'"This is an issue that Microsoft is concerned showed up," Rule said. He added that Microsoft regrets the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers and that the company was "looking at it to make sure this is a lesson learned."'
Unfortunately, from Microsoft's point of view, the lesson they seem to want to impress on the employees is, "thou shalt not get caught", where the court wants them to learn to alter their business practices to prohibit these kinds of restrictive agreements.
Re:Oh, okay. (Score:2)
Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot (Score:2, Troll)
I don't care if I get modded down, so feel free.
Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
If there was sufficient competition in the market, nobody would care if "MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software."
The problem occurs when someone who has monopoly power in a major part of the platform industry
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:5, Insightful)
No crack.... you're just confused.
"The iPod and iTunes are as anti-competitive as it gets."
Not at all... watch as I destroy your whole argument.
"The hardware is completely closed and no third party software can run on it."
That's not anticompetitive... Apple creates the whole product. You might as well go after radio manufacturers (for example) for not allowing other companies to automatically be suppliers for their knobs and buttons. If you create the entire product (hardware and software) you can include as much or as little as you want with it. If Windows could be used to the exclusion of PC hardware... then they would be allowed to bundle as much as they want without concern of leveraging their illegal monopoly.
"There are also a limited number of codec's that work with the iPod."
Actually, the iPod is pretty much on par with all other music players with regard to the number of codecs it can play.
"The only thing that you can do is play AAC, MP3 and DRM'd apple music on it."
Wrong. The iPod can play songs encoded with these CODECS:
MP3 (from 32 Kbps to 320 Kbps)
MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR)
AIFF *
WAV (with no compression)
The following require iPod software 1.3 or later:
M4A AAC *
M4P AAC (Protected) *
M4B AAC (iTunes Music Store Spoken Word files) *
The following require iPod software 2.2 or later or iPod mini 1.1 or later:
Apple Lossless Encoder
* Requires iTunes 4 or iTunes 4 for Windows. AAC files also require the most recent update to the iPod software.
"It is a black box. It even enforces DRM practices on non-DRM music."
Its a Black box... and of course also a white one... and no it does not enforce DRMpractices on non-DRM music.
"Apple chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only apple products to access the iTunes music store - No iPod, no iTunes."
Motorola chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only motorola LCD displays in their phones. No Motorola LCD display, no motorola phone.
Whirlpool chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only Whirlpool dish soap dispensers in their dish washers. No Whirlpool dishsoap dispenser, no Whirlpool dish washer.
Sony chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only sony buttons on their stereos. No Sony buttons, no Sony radio.
See how ridiculous your argument is? Apple creates the entire product the same way that these other companies do. Because Apple also happens to compete in a market that is largely comprised of multiple vendors each contributing a small part in a piecemeal approach to any given technological solution does not mean they are required to do so under any law as you're implying... be it legal or ethical.
"It is a monopoly now - because Apple currently has a majority of the mp3 player market share, and a 100% monopoly on music encoded in an Apple DRM format."
Keep in mind... its not illegal to be a monopoly. Its illegal to use your monopoly illegally. Apple is not doing anything that excludes competitors to enter into the market. Microsoft's spotty history is rife with this sort of behavior throughout its history. They didn't achieve their monopoly legally... and they certainly haven't maintained it legally. Apple on the other hand achieved their monopoly in the market through hard work and innovation. They are maintaining it by doing the same repeatedly.... over and over again.
"They are also actively discouraging 3rd parties from interfacing with their hardware and software (real player)."
And there's nothing illegal or unethical about that.
"Thus, they are using their monopoly advantage to exclude competition in the market of players that can play AAC/DRM formatted music."
No, any company can use the AAC codec and can attach DRM to the fo
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2, Interesting)
All that is solid melts into air (Score:2)
In what way?
Take for example the difficulty in getting Linux to run on Mac hardware,
Ever heard of YDL, the official supplier of Linux on Apple hardware? There are a few different versions of Linux on PPC (ie Apple hardware).
Then they *actively* discouraged other vendors and companies from interfacing with their software and seemingly refused to grant licenses at a reasonable rate - they would probably be taken to court. As it is, there are a variety of WMV cap
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Apple is not, so they can do it.
This is pretty simple. You break the law, you get curtailed rights.
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Not to split hairs, but Microsoft has never been "convicted" of being a monopoly. Being a monopoly is not, in itself, illegal. Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly position in one market to extend it to others. This is illegal as there are many laws preventing monopolies from engaging in such behaviour.
As you point out, Apple is not in the same position and as such, they're not restricted by these laws, neither are they boun
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Last time i checked the iPod was then only device that could play AAC DRM files. That's pretty monopolistic.
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
That's only becaues Apple neglected to actually obtain a monopoly before acting like one.
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:3, Insightful)
On
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Wait a minute. Apple has extended their de-facto monopoly on portable music players (how the got it is unimportant) to a near-monopoly on music software (iTunes) and a music download service (iTMS).
This is EXACTLY what Microsoft is often trashed for. Microsoft used their near-monopoly on operating systems to attempt to corner the browser market. If you want Windows, you get IE.
Apple is doing the same thing. If you want an
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Last time I checked there are severa
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position and Apple might abuse that position, but until they are dragged into court on anti-trust violations and have business practice restrictions placed upon them, like Microsoft, they are free to do as they please. Microsoft reached an agreement that restricted what they could and could not do in the market place with their products, this means other companies are free to create vertical
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position and Apple might abuse that position
Explain how Apple can exclude competitords from the market, then.
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Excluding competitors from a market place is not a requirement for being classed as a monopoly. A monopoly is when their is only one provider in a marketplace. So in some territories Apple holds a market share an order of magnitude larger than its nearest competitor, and Apple might abuse that monopoly like position.
I could have chosen a variet
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Excluding competitors from a market place is not a requirement for being classed as a monopoly.
It absolutely is. If you can't exclude competitors, then they will come, so long as your market is profitable. The very essence of monopoly is that you can set the price higher than market rates and increase your overall profit. In order to do that, you must prevent the other guy from undercutting you, as they would in a free market.
Apple is packed with floppy haired liberals who wouldn't dare abuse that pos
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Because of their market size, Apple have secured volume discounts on flashram chip
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Apple claim to have an increasing share of the mp3 player market trending past 75%, they claim to own an 80% share of the Legal Music download market, it is impossible for a true monopoly to exist in a true market economy which is why I used the term "monopoly like". The only difference between "not monopoly like" and "monopoly like" is where you draw the line, 70% of the market with 30 competitors holding 1% each, 85% of t
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
I guess you forgot about the HP branded iPod. Truth of the matter is, anyone can build an iPod and offer music encoded with Apple's DRM, as long as they play by Apple's rules. Unfortunately most companies find Apple's design specs too restrictive, and lisencing too expensive. But they make great equipment that is highly desirable, and offer an end-to-end solution with the iTunes store, iTunes, and the iPod. If you want part of their 75% mark
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
And what songs was Winamp going to sell? The big content owners were busy fighting new distribution methods at that point. Furthermore, they certainly weren't interested in selling MP3s - still aren't.
Sure - the big guys aren't the whole show. But independants have been early adopters of MP3s;
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
I'm sure this has got to be redundant by now, but what the hell, at least I'll pile on...
Did you happen to notice WHO it was that Microsoft was explaining their error to? You know, the judge who ruled over the trial in which MS was convicted for illegal abuse of monopoly power?
When Apple gets convicted of illegal abuse of monopoly power, then you might have a point.
Note that simply having a monopoly (as Apple does with the portable music player market w
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
And.. Mice, Trackball, Fingerprint readers, Wifi cards, Routers (several kinds), Ethernet adapters, Joysticks (many types)...
For a software company they sure make a shitload of hardware! [amazon.com]
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:3, Interesting)
The disputed plan, part of a marketing campaign known as "easy start," would have affected portable music devices that compete with Apple Computer Inc.'s popular iPod. It would have precluded makers of those devices from distributing to consumers music software other than Microsoft's own Windows Media Player, in exchange for Microsof
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're comparing apples to oranges. From the article:
A proper comparison would be to note that Apple requires Apple to bundle iTunes with sales of the iPod and other devices Apple sells. Which, I suppose, they do.... since it's all one company. But this is hardly your point.
Your confusion is over the content offered on iTunes. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with content. Would you care to point out where content providers are required to enter an exclusive contract with Apple to make that content only available via iTunes? Or perhapse where the Judge found objections to the Windows Media format?
Re:Why the Music Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not:
Anti-Virus
Anti-Spyware
Firewall
The typical statements are:
1) Anti-spware; there is just no clear leader in the market
2) Firewall; its not full fledge product
3) A/V not sure what the rational is here. There are market leaders and its going to be a full fledge product.
The fundamental problem is that Microsoft really has lost the ability to compete on merits of software. I think that many of their current policies may expose them to far more dangerous antitrust litigation in the future including all those you just mentioned. IANAL though.
I think that the changes in SP2 regarding better protection against ActiveX controls could have bit into the antispyware market, but that is quite defensible in terms of improving one's product. That seems to me to be clearly on the right side of the line. However, bundling antispyware solutions with Windows (via WIndows Update) seems to be questionable at best. Personal firewalls are another area where there is good question (though Microsoft's personal firewall isn't that great of a product).
In both of these cases, however, it could be argued (unsuccessfully, I think) that because most of this software is given away as a loss leader or integrated into antivirus software, that there is no such thing as a personal firewall or antispyware market. This might be sufficient to handle such complaints (remember that the appeals court found that the DoJ had not made a case that there was such a thing as a web browser market and hence overturned part of the judgement against Microsoft on these grounds). But I don't know. If there is a dispute about whether a market exists, I would expect that to be an issue of fact and a matter for a jury. If I were Microsoft, I would not want to allow for a jury trial in such a case.
None of these arguments work in the antivirus area. And it is quite possible that this is an area that Microsoft is going to get sucked into quite to their detriment.