This is a pretty tame rant but anyhoo. Microsoft was found to be abusing its monopoly in regards to packaging Windows Media Player with the Windows Operating System in Europe. They were forced to sell a version of Windows with a competitors media player such as Real or Apple’s. What name did Microsoft come up with for the second version of Windows?
‘Reduced Media Edition’
:rolleyes:
Its like a 7 year old being told to apologize and have them say ‘I am sorry for you being stupid’. I hope Microsoft gets an extra bit of smack down for wasting the commisions time and acting like a little child.
As one who’s never understood why Microsoft is forced to sell competing software - I can’t think of an equivalent in any other industry, it’s like McDonald’s being forced to offer Whoppers - I think it’s kind of funny too.
Hm I guess how I can see how its kinda funny but then again I have never been one to tolerate much bullshit. It just irked me that one of the most powerful companies in the world is whining like a little bitch.
For the record I don’t agree with the ruling that Microsoft has to include other media players but it is what it is. For as much flak as Microsoft gets they do actually put out some good products. Espicially in this case I hate the evil that is RealPlayer.
It’s a pretty inevitable result of what is going to be a fairly ineffectual sanction, no matter how well-intended. Microsoft have long argued that no-one is going to buy the “reduced media” edition, and since the price is going to be identical, they’re precisely right. It really doesn’t matter what the name is, it matters whether the OEM manufacturers will pick it up in order to be able to make a cheaper box, which they obviously can’t if it’s the same price. I guess now it’s more open for other media player companies to make deals with OEMs to distribute their media player, but to my mind this is a fairly marginal concession to competition.
And just by-the-by, MS “being forced” to sell competing media players is a bit of a misconception - it’s really the ability of OEM box-shifters to install competing products instead of WMP. MS are just being forced not to force WMP on you :). I don’t believe you’ll ever see a consumer copy of Windows on the shelves with RealPlayer bundled. Just don’t be surprised to see, say, Dell offering boxes with MusicMatch instead of WMP to tie in with Dell’s Media Jukebox, or other manufacturers offering “iPod-ready” boxes with iTunes instead of WMP. That sort of thing.
Actually, I think I just convinced myself that the ruling could be quite helpful after all. It’ll be interesting to see, really.
And yes, RealPlayer was made by gibbons. Evil ones.
While RealPlayer isn’t quite as obnoxious as it used to be, it’s still worth giving the ‘heave ho.’ Using Add/Remove Programs seems to clean it off fairly completely. In its stead, I can recommend Real Alternative (the download is available in a bunch of other places, too - just Google for it). It’s free, it seems to be nicely stripped down, and I’ve never caught it trying to contact the mother ship.
I think MS should have gone the whole hog and called it “Poopy And Stupid Media Edition Coz You’re Dumb And You Don’t Know What You’re Talking About So Nya Nya Nya”.
Just what is the big deal with WMP anyway? I’ve installed RM, WinAmp, and various other media players without any problems. It’s all in the file associations, tell the fucking program what you want it to play and be done with it. Telling Microsoft to package 3rd party software, is just wrong on so many levels. I don’t really see how it could be different then telling McDonalds to use Burger King fries in McDonalds Happy Meals. I’d rather use a piece of software designed by a 2 year old then use one from Real.
Exactly.
The following quote could make McDonalds do the same thing. They’re a dominant company too. The comparison is accurate.
What annoys the shit out of me is precisely that the MS product tries to contact the mothership. If I start WMP with the intent of opening a file from within,instead och double clicking it, it takes fucking forever, because it wants to show me a shitload of MSN crap and entertainment news. I can’t understand why MS insist on having every damn piece of software trying to connect to the internet,and using, in effect, three browsers: IE, MSN Explorer and WMP.
Apart from that, I really don’t have a beef with MS.
I do with computer retail and makers though. They always try to spice up the offer by talking about how much software is included. Well, a lot of it is open license and not costing the maker anything, the rest is always shareware. I guess one way for the maker to make money is to contact winzip, Symantec, Real, Apple (for the evil that is quick time), InterVideo and a few more, and they in turn hope that some folks will frk up for the full version.
I use Media PLayer lassic which is open source, plays just about any format (provided I’ve downloaded all the frikkin codecs), does what I tell it to and don’t give me any lip.
I’m gonna build my next computer from scratch, myself.
BTW - what’s up with all the frikkin codecs? Why do they exist? To what purpose.
They’re not telling Microsoft themselves to package 3rd party software, they’re telling them to allow OEMs to do so, and quite rightly too. They are saying that Microsoft are abusing their monopoly on PC operating systems to foist their media player on the consumer, obviating the need for competition. It has nothing to do with the quality of WMP, nor that of its competitors. In short, WMP should succeed or fail on its merits - not because Microsoft’s monopoly of the OS market allows it to force everyone to have it.
The McDonald’s analogy is no such thing, since there is nothing preventing me from choosing to go somewhere else for my fries, nor anything forcing me to accept McDonald’s fries in the first place. McDonald’s are not a monopoly, and there is nothing unfair about the competition in the fast-food market, since McDonald’s have no way to force me to eat there but by offering a product I like.
This is not true of the media player market, since Microsoft bundle WMP to every customer whether they want it or not. This is precisely the behaviour Microsoft were convicted of in the USA regarding IE vs. Netscape. The conviction was so late that by the time its sanctions took any effect, Netscape was all but dead, and the Windows world was saddled with an inferior product which MS then ceased to develop, since it had no motivation to do so. The lack of competition in the browser market has (IMO) led directly to the vast array of virus and spyware problems that infest modern PCs. Only now are we starting to see competitors spring up again, now that MS have been forced to allow other browsers to be set as the PC’s default option.
You can, if you wish, twist Mario Monti’s words into saying that market leaders in any sector can and will be forced to sell their competitor’s products for them. This is highly misrepresentative, however, and completely ignores the reality of the ruling, and the facts on which it is based.
I use Media Player Classic with Real Alternative, and it’s so nice just to be able to play a file without having to contact the fucking internet every time or view a bunch of crappy ads. MPC uses very little memory, and it’s interface is simple and straightforward to use.
Re. Gaspode’s reference to “frikkin codecs,” might i suggest ffdshow, a DirectShow and VFW codec that lets you play virtually anything, and gets around the need to download a bunch of dodgy codecs from all over the internet. Since i combined ffdshow with MPC and Real Atlernative, i’ve never had a single problem.
Last time I checked (and I could be wrong), OS X comes with Quicktime, Mail, iChat (AV) and tons of other bundled apps. It would only seem fair that Apple not bundle it’s (competing) multimedia package - Quicktime, no? :rolleyes:
Of course not! That’s good business? Why not bundle your own software with your product? Maybe the market is different in Europe, but Dell, HP and all other OEMs bundle all their little crappy programs with their systems. So does Apple, and so should MS. If you don’t like [Quicktime | WMP | RealPlayer | whatever], then download and install what you want, it’s not the end of the world.
This is like buying a Ford and being pissed that it’s “bundled” with Firestone tires, since you wanted Goodyear. So go out and get some Goodyears, no biggie. But antitrust it is not. IMHO, of course, and YMMV.
dasgupta - as has been mentioned, it’s more like Ford not letting a car dealer offer Goodyear at all.
My favourite part about when any state “wins” a case against Microsoft, Microsoft gets to “pay” with it’s own software, for which it was just sued for violating monopoly laws. :rolleyes: I wish I could pay my income tax with software I wrote. AFAIK, nobody else is allowed to turn a .25$ CD into 250$ that way.
Rolleyes all you like, the (vast) difference is that Microsoft has a monopoly, and Apple does not. It is naturally impossible for Apple to abuse a monopoly it does not have. If the Macintosh were the computer used by 97% of the world’s consumers, then Apple would, I am sure, quite swiftly find itself in breach of numerous anti-trust laws*.
Like the McDonald’s analogy, your Ford example is flawed - it would be like complaining that Ford “bundle” Firestones with their cars if Ford had a monopoly. They plainly do not.
I’ll ask again - does anyone who disagrees with this ruling believe that IE became the dominant browser by being manifestly better than the alternative? If not, are you happy about this state of affairs, and what do you suggest the remedy should be (or should have been, rather)?
I suppose it all depends on the definition of a monopoly. I’m sure there’s an exact legal definition in the juristiction that fits, but I disagree with it. Microsoft does not have a monopoly as I see it in that there are plenty of other operating systems available for the PC, many which can be installed by OEMs (including large OEMs - Dell used to offer Redhat on workstations, it still does on servers and will install on workstations by special order). OTOH, Apple did have a monopoly with their older OSes. You buy a Mac, it runs OS 9.x, end of story. This is somewhat alleviated in that Linux PPC distros are more available. However, can you buy a Mac without OS X (in some form)? Not from Apple, you can’t.
As I said, I’m sure that MS has a legal monopoly in the specified jurisdiction, but how is WMP bundled with XP different from QT bundled with OS X, in that there are other media players and operating systems available for each platform?
Regardless of if I disagree with the ruling - was IE manifestly better than the alternative? That’s opinion, of course. Five years ago (when MS bundled IE with W2K), the answer might very well be yes. Netscape was woefully out of date, etc, etc. With the new browser wars, that’s a different story.
It is very worrisome that this is called a “virtual monopoly”. What is a virtual monopoly? Close enough that we’ll extort money out of you for our coffers, but not close enough to actually be a monopoly?