In 2002, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates stood on stage at Hollywood's Kodak Theatre, home to the Academy Awards, and pronounced this "the digital decade".
By 2010, Gates told an audience that included director James Cameron and musician LL Cool J, everything from paying bills to seeing movies "will be done on a digital basis, and the PC with its magic software will play the central role".
He then proceeded to unveil what Microsoft considers a key part of that vision: a half a billion dollar upgrade to the Windows Media Player for music, movies and other digital content. Eighteen months later, Gates's endeavour could be facing a big roadblock.
If Microsoft cannot settle an antitrust case brought by European Union regulators, the company may be ordered to remove Windows Media Player as an integrated feature of the dominant Windows operating system, at least for personal computers sold in Europe.
The European Commission also could order Microsoft to include rival media players with Windows to make those products as easy for users to access as Microsoft's own music and video player. Microsoft has said it is certain to appeal any ruling against it. Still, the European case could hinder Microsoft's efforts to dominate an emerging and important technology market.
View: Read more at The Age
News source: The Age
By 2010, Gates told an audience that included director James Cameron and musician LL Cool J, everything from paying bills to seeing movies "will be done on a digital basis, and the PC with its magic software will play the central role".
He then proceeded to unveil what Microsoft considers a key part of that vision: a half a billion dollar upgrade to the Windows Media Player for music, movies and other digital content. Eighteen months later, Gates's endeavour could be facing a big roadblock.
If Microsoft cannot settle an antitrust case brought by European Union regulators, the company may be ordered to remove Windows Media Player as an integrated feature of the dominant Windows operating system, at least for personal computers sold in Europe.
The European Commission also could order Microsoft to include rival media players with Windows to make those products as easy for users to access as Microsoft's own music and video player. Microsoft has said it is certain to appeal any ruling against it. Still, the European case could hinder Microsoft's efforts to dominate an emerging and important technology market.
View: Read more at The Age News source: The Age
** 33 Windows XP Pre-Service Pack 2 Critical Updates
** 25 Windows XP Pre-Service Pack 2 Recommended Updates
** 05 Internet Explorer Updates
** 03 Outlook Express Updates
** Bootvis Tool (version 1.3.37)
** Euro Conversion Tool
** MSN Messenger 6.1.0207 w/ Option to uninstall Windows Messenger 4.7
** Windows Messenger 5.0.0468 (if you chose not to install MSN Messenger)
** Microsoft Virtual Machine w/ 2 Updates
** Sun Java 1.4.2_03 (for those running SP1a or SP1)
** Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer 1.2
** Microsoft Data Access Components 2.8 w/ 1 Update
** Microsoft DirectX 9.0b w/ 1 Update & Optional Control Panel Shortcut
** Microsoft Jet 4.0 Service Pack 8
** Microsoft Jet 4.0 Service Pack 8 Replication Update
** Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 w/ 1 Update
** Microsoft SharePoint Migration Tool
** Microsoft Windows Journal Viewer
** Windows XP PowerToys (including 8 Bonus Powertoys)
** Microsoft XML 3.0 SP4
** Microsoft XML 4.0 SP2
** Windows Media Player 9 w/ Update to Build 3093 & 8 other Updates & Enhancements
** Windows Movie Maker 2.0
** Windows Rights Management Client 1.0
** 3D Windows XP ScreenSaver
** Adaptec ASPI Layer for Windows XP
** Bliss Screensaver
** Microsoft American Flag ScreenSaver
** Device Manager Shortcut to All Programs Menu"
** Desktop Icon Restore Tool"
** Windows Media Player Classic version 6.4.7.5"
** Microsoft Virtual CD Tool"
** Ability to remove ASP.Net Uset Account
** Ability to remove all Windows XP ScreenSavers
** Ability to remove all Win9x based Wallpapers
** Ability to remove all Windows XP Wallpapers
** IE Spy-Ad
** Optional Internet Explorer Spellcheck tool
** System Uptime Tool
** Macromedia Flash Player
** Macromedia Shockwave Player
** MSN Plus 2.5.4
** Neowin Screensaver (XP logon Hack)
** Microsoft NZ Bliss Wallpaper
** Option to replace update 8-Bit Shutdown and Logoff Icons on Windows Classic Theme
** Startup Monitor
** Startup CPL
** UxTheme.dll Patcher (so you can use custom themes)
** 62 Registry Tweaks
** And Much More!!
**** you RealPlayer
and if real[ly crap]player does get bundled with windows i assume we'll be able to uninstall the hunking heap of crappy bloated spyware?
No we cannot assume this at all. Where was OS X mentioned?
"or is it another case of one law for microsoft, a different one for everyone else?"
Yes, one law for a convicted monopolist and another for everyone else. That's how it works. If this concept is too difficult for you then give up now. The law changes once you are a convicted monopolist!
"and if real[ly crap]player does get bundled with windows i assume we'll be able to uninstall the hunking heap of crappy bloated spyware?"
Can you currently remove WMP? No you cannot. Let's hope that the decision isn't to install ANYTHING that you cannot later remove yourself. And no, removing the icons from the start menu and the desktop doesn't count as removing the product, sorry.
BTW, until it has fully gone through the appeals process, it's not done. The IE case was settled, no "guilty", the only thing profound in that lawsuit was that in a statement of fact, the judge labelled Microsoft as a monopoly.
EU has done the same thing. "Hey you're a monopoly." And? The final word has yet to be spoken anywhere that microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices.
You might think I'm dancing around the point... I'm not. If they were guilty I'd call it. But I have yet to see any shred of proof behind anyone claiming that microsoft has been found guilty and serving sentence for monopolistic practices. "Settling" is not "Guilty".
Edit: I find it funny that people will take the stance that the law is perfect and infallible in one stance (They must be guilty! One judge/court said so! No takebacks! Nyahh!) and in the other stand totally have a blind eye to the entire judicial system.
Last edited by 48053 on 08 Mar 2004 - 23:41
You are most definitely dancing around the point: you've admited that MS is a monopoly, you've admitted that they may do illegal things to preserve it, you have admitted that they could use the monopoly in other markets... and at the same time, you want us to beleive we're working with a blank slate here where MS has never done nothing bad, never advanced a product using the dominance of Windows, never was determiend to be an illegal monopoly, etc....
We aren't buyin' it.
I've also admitted that you may run over a dog, you could lie on your IRS reports, and you could be a garlic cheese lover. And that your name definitely is dp123.
All supposition and hot air. Except your name.
In the law, yes, there are absolutes.
if this happens then windows will become inheritantly bad.
if people think its unstable now, think how bad it will be once real player is forced to become integrated to the os...
oooh scary....
If, after this whole thing, there is only a choice between WMP and Real, that would really suck. Great, now I have a choice between a piece of crap and a turd.
Wow, that increases the playing field by like 10000%. Way to go, buddy.
Last edited by 820 on 08 Mar 2004 - 17:56
My sentiments exactly.
If justice worked, Microsoft would have been split up years ago. Damn Monopolies.
And by the way, only douches use media player. Xine owns everything.
Monopolies aren't a problem, look at the PS2. The problem is the monopolies that are created or maintained using illegal means.
I want to see Apple get brought to court too if MS is required to do this though. They bundle Quicktime just like MS bundles WMP.
But if apple has to remove quicktime so be it. As long as microsoft's player is unselectable during install or gone from it completely.
The reality is that if SUSE became top dog in the client market, would you honestly condone the NON installation of ancillary products such as Xine?
1. Microsoft was declared a "monopoly" by the courts, that involves separate legal treatment for the company now.
2. I do not personally believe that they are a "true" monopoly, as there are good choices out there. Close to one, yes, but not a true, full monopoly.
3. The PS2 is nowhere near a monopoly. Who brought this up and why???
4. Forcing a disadvantage against a convicted monopoly is exactly how the government levels the business playing field.
5. If WMP or IE or OE were de-selectable and could be un-installed, then Microsoft would not be in such hot water in the EU over this.
6. SuSE packages xine, mozilla, etc., but all are not just able to be uninstalled - they can be un selected and never installed. So comparing Linux to Windows doesn't work in this situation.
So, yes, I think that Microsoft's practices concerning the integration-bundling has been less than fair. They even push the envelope of what is legally allowed for a convicted monopolist. However, forcing them to include a "3rd party CD" filled with alternative programs is not the solution.
I'd be happy if they installed thier apps by default, but made them removeable. I think that would get some of the heat off of them, too....
Yep. You are so right sir. An option to not have WMP installed is all I need.
You, on the other hand, don't need anything. You can already do whatever you want with your music programs. You don't have to use WMP as it stands. All you are doing is whining when you don't know the difference between what's bad for a company and what's bad for a user.
Why? Because ISVs want it that way -- that's why you bought Windows, to get a standard suite of APIs, one of which is WMP. Again, it's been in there far longer than even IE.
Any monopolistic practices do need to be fixed. If the appeal fails and microsoft is indeed found guilty (nothings done til really done) you still are left with a crippled product. For that's what you buy when you buy windows ... a suite of APIs.
"Yeah actually it is intrusive during the times I actually use windows you douche. Plus all the registry entries to deal with. No wonder windows gets so slow when you install lots of programs."
Tell me... do you even BEGIN to know what the word maturity means? Not to mention half of the crap you say is BS. You don't like Microsoft, I have read about 3 of your posts now and after I got past the immature remarks, it was quite evidently clear. Okay, so now how abot you go do something constructive with your day rather than filling up this page with crap that we all have to read.
Do you realize that half of the posts on this page are yours? I think I can speak for everyone when I say GET A LIFE. All you do is start arguments, and your comments are completely useless. If you want to spam the hell out of a page, at least get your facts straight.
i like WMP and i have 3 icons on my desktop and about 4 3rd party program installed
Secondly, installation of programs, no matter how many, does not slow down the system directly. Services that programs require to run as dependencies might slow down a system. For example, look at SUSE -- you have hundreds of executable programs on your system. Would you really argue that this slows down your system? Of course not.
Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with the other comments here... but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried! Have a good search on the web (try google) on Windows Registry and just how bogged down it gets the more programs you install (especially those really nice ones which put crap everywhere)... ONCE you have done all that, try coming back and convincing us that Windows doesn't slow down regardless of how many programs you have installed! The Registry DIRECTLY affect Windows performance, and the number of applications installed (that use the registry - which most do) DIRECTLY affects the Registry!
Nor is there a theoretical limit of programs.
It's about as silly an argument as saying filling your hard drive causes program slowdown. Yes and no, and you can't really blame the OS for that. Sure there are defragmenters, but as the available space decreases, so does performance. That is not an OS problem... it is present in all incarnations of any OS.
That is specifically leveraging its OS dominance to advance its product in another market. However, it's ALREADY been determined that microsoft has illegally maintained that monopoly and has illegally used that dominance to penetrate other markets.
Microsoft should not be able to become a major player in whatever market it wants to by leveraging its OS.
Possibly due to defragmentation? maybe. So i load defragmenter and analyze. No defragmentation needed. So what then. It's slow, no fragmentation. So I install a registry cleaner to prove im correct. Then I delete program groups of windows media player and msn so that it removes any links in the registry to those programs that no longer exist. After I finsihed cleaning the registry it found something like 1000+ errors. After it was done windows speeded up quite a bit, but not as much as I am used to in my other OS.
As for the linux issue. With SuSE, I can choose what programs I want DURING INSTALL. I can even choose if I wish to have no GUI so I can be one of those crazy console users who browse around in Lynx.
Microsoft also has different laws since they are a monopoly, to even out the playing field. IF Apple had 90% of the market then they would have this exact same lawsuit if users couldn't remove quicktime on install (which im pretty sure they can actually, last time i installed Mac OS there was a program selection).
You can also customize what gets installed on windows (to some extent) but it is much more difficult to do than most linux installations.
OEMs have a choice of what to install during the install process. So do scripted installs. So what if you have an express installation? I would infer that any intelligent Linux admin can install minimal apps and services just like any intelligent windows admin can install Windows with minimal services as well. Doesn't work for you? I wouldn't question your intelligence, but maybe, just maybe, there are ways to do it.
Bear in mind that Windows is catered toward the masses. I would guarantee that Linux would have an express installation if it were just as popular... in fact, most do. And just like most naive Linux administrators, most don't know what can safely be disabled.
The old Media Player had limited format support and no hooks to the OS. It didn't play MS formats because none existed.
Now Media Player is a completely different monster with its own format (streaming and not ... the old MP didn't support streaming.), its own media server, and a thousand hooks into the OS.
They are most definitely leveraging their monopoly. Listen to the twaddle they spew about WMA/V and what they say about the competition. They actually state that you can only guarantee support for WMA/V on Windows. They absolutely lose millions on licensing. They absolutely understand the ubiquity of mp3 and other mpeg formats, but they pretend its too expensive to license (despite the fact that every other company in the world can and does).
OEMs may be able to install other apps, but that doesn't prevent MS from using its OS dominance as an advantage. The US case stipulated NOTHING in regards to WMP.
As I said, it has nothing to do with installation. If so, what's the big deal about other apps being installed. MS is unfairly trying to prevent the other formats from being used simply because they aren't created by MS and aren't bundled. If MS is running around Hollywood, Asian device manufacturers, and OEMs saying "WMA/V is superior because it's on every machine and no other format/player is", that is using OS dominance to improve their position in another market.
I don't know or care about what express installations and Linux have to do with it.
The express installs vs custom installs is an illustration that OEM and scripted installations can handpick file by file installations if wished.
Bear in mind that advertising an enhanced feature for Windows is not illegal. So WMP is on 94% of the clients... the only time legally anyone should be concerned is that Microsoft prevents installation of competitive browsers directly or through business arrangements.
As for mp3, I'm not arguing about 10 years ago; you are. I am talking about Microsoft dumping mp3 encoding support. This happened a year or two ago when they had 40 billion dollars in cash and their format still was behind and had absolutely NO position in the market.
You aren't getting my point. Microsoft is going around to people who license codecs, people who produce applications, people who produce media and saying to them: "Do not use Real or Quicktime; you can't guarantee users will have them. You can be sure they will have WMP (or at least 94% of them.)"
THIS IS ILLEGAL. They can only make such claims because they have an illegal monopoly in OSes. It's not even a matter of barring competitors from the market; they are simply using their OS dominance as leverage to get an ever greater share of the market. In other words, would WMP and WMA/V be as attractive to anyone if Microsoft wasn't providing it below cost and guaranteeing that it was on every Windows machine? Of course not. And that's the problem with a monopoly. They have immense advantages over the market and others, particularly in the tech field.
Last edited by 9953 on 09 Mar 2004 - 00:05
Applications evolve. They change with the times. This is what I was illustrating. Maybe not you, but others have claimed that the introduction of WMP into Windows was monopolistic. It's been there all along, in another form.
They didn't dump it -- it was never free to use due to patents and license requirements. If clients paid a royalty for it, they could get it in WMP. Why do you think OGG exists?
There's nothing wrong with stating the current market position. That is not monopolistic. Show me a quote where Microsoft says "We'll charge windows less for you if you do NOT put Real on your system." THAT would be illegal.
I can make the same claim, because it's the truth. It's not illegal to say the truth the last I heard, even as a marketing point. Though most marketers would disagree...
But if I was forced to pick between WMP9 and RealPlayer, I would choose realplayer just to spite you guys. Plus I could easily watch all my south park episodes.
Who would you be spiting? No one cares if you use RP.
"when I am actually in windows..."
Futhermore, no one cares how much you use windows.
Lastly, no one cares about your South Park episodes.
Grow up.
2) Apple isn't a monopoly, since Microsoft is they can't use their position to strong arm the competition. If Microsoft wasn't a monopoly it wouldn't be a problem.
3) Microsoft sucks, this lawsuit is great.
of course its different
but anyway it really doesnt matter, you cant cripple a company against potential competitors, just because they are in power
and yes, you can cripple a company when they are a monopoly.
And in the phone business, competeing adsl companies are granted use of the main phone companies lines even if they don't want them to. This is similar to that.
There is no law, nor is it anti-moral, to become a monopoly. Every company wants to be a monopoly. It means you basically own the market. You're the best. Top dog. There is such a thing as a "natural monopoly" where one product has through no illegal practices, become the top product.
The laws surrounding monopoly companies are designed to protect competitors, and to make the marketplace fair game. For example, a monopolist acting against the law could create exclusionary deals with vendors to exclude competition from the marketplace. This is precisely the case (and the cornerstone) of the IE vs Netscape issue -- Netscape (and thusly the DOJ) sued Microsoft saying that OEMs had been offered lower prices in order to NOT package Netscape onto the OEM deliverables.
The case was settled, with one of the stipulations being that the IE icon could also be removed (note that IE is still present). Microsoft now has even more governmental oversight to make sure that no lawbreaking monopoly activity occurs.
Our personal beliefs are not at issue here. Microsoft is a monopoly, and they have also not been found guilty of anything at least in the US. The WMP EU issue is interesting because the reality is again, people want a share of the Windows desktop space. That desktop space is owned by Microsoft, they sell the product Windows. If there is something going on between MS and the OEMs that is for the courts to decide.
However, in summary, get off the "they're a monopoly therefore they are inherently evil" kick, because it doesn't mean anything. It means in fact that they are under far far more scrutiny than any other company in the same market, and that is a Good Thing. There are a lot of monopolies in the world, and the laws are designed to allow competition rather than deter.
Microsoft cannot claim: it's our desktop, we can do anything we want with it. They actually have a platform which they must not do anything with that could be considered leveraging their dominance to further it into other markets. Specifically, sicne they can guarantee their apps will be on 95% of the machines and that other apps won't or won't be able to hook into the MS OS the way their apps can, that can be an antittust infraction.
It seems to me we've gotten over the part about a monopoly not necessarily being illegal (it can be by the way; a company can become a monopoly naturally, but that doesn't mean anything towards becoming a monopoly is legal.) It's you who doesn't get that its their behavior in non-OS markets which is inextricably linked with their OS which is a monopoly. And that they are certainly trying to leverage that dominance to become dominant in something that they aren't.
Because, obviously, this discussion of monopolies is SPECIFICALLY and UNIQUELY related to media and media players....
Duh.
Yes, this thread is specifically about EU and WMP.
And in the phone business, competeing adsl companies are granted use of the main phone companies lines even if they don't want them to. This is similar to that.
So are you telling me that Microsoft chose for me to have WMP installed on my PC and not have Quicktime or Real installed?
1. WMP is the best player I have ever used.
2. Real is spyware, you couldn't pay me to install it on my PC.
3. Quicktime is full of annoying advertisements, I don't want anything to do with Quicktime player anymore. A quicktime codec for WMP would be nice through.
and what is even more sad, people are biased for no reason other than the usual subjective reasoning that comes anlong with being a "microsoft hater/lover".
no flames, just merely making an observation,
STV
if you wish to reply to my post, please do it in a civilized manner.
Last edited by 40230 on 08 Mar 2004 - 06:36
Windows should come with no programs. Only then will I buy a copy of Windows.
Of course not. I need some way to install programs (GCC compiler, installer/packager/depackager), maybe a tar/gzip handler ... but wait, I'm installing programs...
Windows is not Unix. Already (although I'm certain you'll disagree of course) you should concede that you need minimalistic basic operational programs installed. The problem is that in order for this debate (for it really is one) to continue you need to understand that -- on a basic level -- some programs, APIs, DLLs, etc are required in Windows for basic operation. While they're not used day by day, they are needed by ISVs in the same way that unix programs do dependency checks -- these codebits are needed for the program to run. On windows, these programs are assumed there. On unix, you never know.
So while you could in theory argue that a copy of unix/linux could be shipped with no programs, just like I could argue a copy of Windows could be also, both would be completely unusable. Therefore, it's somewhat of a moot point.
If you want to get to the reality of the installations, you can install Windows without certain programs. Heck, you can install it without anything you want, if you want to get into the OEM-class installations. I assume you can do the same with unix/linux. Again, don't see what this really proves, except that you still hate Windows, no matter how much logic there might be.
For example, where would you draw the line in a "Windows vs Linux" argument? At the kernel?
EnderDX said he'd only buy Windows if it came program free, I was just illustrating how impossible and impractical that is, even for Linux.
Windows, with the shell and anything needed to run programs. That includes DLL's, api's and whatever. No paint, notepad, wordpad, IE, media player, calculator, etc.
As for linux, you can get it program free because linux is the kernel.
A linux distro is harder I agree but it can be made to meet the requirements I just mentioned for Windows to run programs. Which would include a compiler, a shell, any libraries, etc.