Microsoft announced today that it will not appeal against the European Union's court order compelling the company to remove Windows Media Player from the Windows XP operating system in Europe.
In a statement to the Associated Press, they announced the company had "decided to forego its right to appeal the Court of First Instance's...ruling of December 22, 2004. Rather than seeking to suspend the Commission's remedies, Microsoft's focus now is on working constructively with the Commission on their full and prompt implementation."
The software giant lost its bid in December to delay the sanctions any further. The original ruling in March 2004 involved a wopping £331m/$613m fine against the company. As well as stripping Windows Media Player from Windows XP, Microsoft has been ordered to reveal essential APIs to rival software companies like Apple and RealPlayer.
The company must now deliver a new version of Windows XP sans Windows Media Player. Microsoft has stated that the version will be available in "coming weeks" but it's still not clear just how they will remove it. A lot of elements native to Windows XP refer to Windows Media Player meaning that the removal task could be much more than taking out media player code, and could affect various user interfaces. Whatever happens in terms of the code, one can expect Microsoft to begin offering a Windows XP without WMP by March in Europe. The rest of Microsofts appeal against a previous EU ruling continues.
View: Microsoft Loses EU Appeal
View: Microsoft Corp
In a statement to the Associated Press, they announced the company had "decided to forego its right to appeal the Court of First Instance's...ruling of December 22, 2004. Rather than seeking to suspend the Commission's remedies, Microsoft's focus now is on working constructively with the Commission on their full and prompt implementation."
The software giant lost its bid in December to delay the sanctions any further. The original ruling in March 2004 involved a wopping £331m/$613m fine against the company. As well as stripping Windows Media Player from Windows XP, Microsoft has been ordered to reveal essential APIs to rival software companies like Apple and RealPlayer.
The company must now deliver a new version of Windows XP sans Windows Media Player. Microsoft has stated that the version will be available in "coming weeks" but it's still not clear just how they will remove it. A lot of elements native to Windows XP refer to Windows Media Player meaning that the removal task could be much more than taking out media player code, and could affect various user interfaces. Whatever happens in terms of the code, one can expect Microsoft to begin offering a Windows XP without WMP by March in Europe. The rest of Microsofts appeal against a previous EU ruling continues.
View: Microsoft Loses EU Appeal View: Microsoft Corp
Work more easily with multiple windows by arranging them in efficient tiled layouts. Double-click the WindowSizer icon in your system tray to arrange all non-minimized open windows or use the "Tile Last" command to specify exactly how many of your recently used windows to tile. Choose from many default layouts or create your own and set as default. Resizing a window in your arrangement automatically resizes neighboring windows to maintain a tiled layout. Drag and drop tiled windows to swap positions. Use WindowSizer's right-click menu or keyboard shortcuts to manipulate your windows more efficiently and reduce tedious manual resizing and moving of windows. Close all windows in arrangement or on desktop with one command. Bring back the same group of applications or websites anytime by saving your arrangements as ".panes" files. Open several arrangements and manage your virtual desktops with WindowSizer or manage your windows across multiple monitors.
and how come Apple doesnt have to remove iTunes from OSX?
and, no im sorry i cant stop my self first comment
Well, yea, nobody is forcing it on Apple because nobody cares enough to sue them. But it would make sense to apply the same rules to Apple, since removal of WMP from Windows in theory would both give MacOS an advantage in the marketplace by crippling Windows, and also give QuickTime and iTunes an advantage, since both will be bundled in a common OS. Its just not good law, imo
I wonder if Microsoft has the legal ability to raise this issue
I see nothing wrong with bundling as long as it does not stifle competition. If MSFT was not a convicted monopolist who had used illegal tactics against the competition and won its monopoly on merit alone, we would not be having this thread/discussion.
Look up the "law" people before you go off spouting off about this.
To give you an analogy some of you might understand. What MSFT was doing was equivalent of private individual setting up a toll both on a public road without permission of the state. Also, let's say that this individual was using the toll to give preferential treatment to their business's rigs and denying access to competing trucking companies.
anticompetitive behavior is judged on whether microsoft is doing something unfair with its product. if removing a software feature means the competing product is able to have the feature that microsoft can't, then its not clear microsoft is doing something unfair. do you get that?
say if a court ruled that microsoft couldn't include any browser, media player, etc., and everything else in their operating system, and this caused users to go to mac (or a mac like os) in droves, then this os becomes the monopoly and that os 'stifles competition'. do you really have to wait until then you enforce the same rules with apple? its a silly little game. anti-trust laws are not around to punish the market leader and put another company in its place; theyre to ensure consumers are not hurt by one product having an artificial advantage over another, which is what mac would have if windows was crippled. there would have to be a real solution, which would apply equally to all software by all companies, otherwise there is no real standard by which to judge anticompetitive practices
and no, the law isn't just about microsoft. if microsoft included quicktime and only quicktime in windows, they could be subject to lawsuits. the antitrust law is about preventing a product from benefiting from a monopoly position. there are laws against oligopolist behavior also; companies cannot directly collude with each other to control the market together.
this whole problem is because there is a complex set of issues here regarding not only bundling and integration, but the nature of the software business, that haven't been fully addressed in law. about what can be lawfully integrated or bundled; whether you can set different standards for different competing products; whether software can have a monopoly when you can get it for free and easily install something new into your hardware; etc. the legal system in certain cases has gone down against microsoft, in other cases in favor of them. but this is what we're arguing, not whether they were convicted. but how the law really should be interpreted; and it has been interpreted many ways by judges, because its not clear.
so part of the whole issue is whether this is really anticompetitive in a meaningful way which would single out microsoft as the only bad guy, and whether antitrust laws make sense regarding software features. your interpretation of antitrust laws is simplistic
unless you want to explain why apple is free to do anything because it manufactures the hardware. if microsoft made computers you would be fine with integration of everything? is that really a position of yours thats based on wanting to prevent unfair competition? microsoft based a lot of its pressuring practices on legal grounds also; that it was microsoft's product and oems couldn't do what they wanted with it. there is a legal basis for this, you know.
a lot of oems also manufacture their computers to microsoft's standards in order that they be built for windows operating systems. microsoft would say they dont have to use windows. well so this may have problems that we'd want to guard against in law. but so does the idea that apple has a free ride and can do anything just because they make the hardware. in either case, the company uses its market position to consolidate a market position second-level software, and its the same effect if its either apple or microsoft. the difference is artificial.
Last edited by 8493 on 25 Jan 2005 - 09:26
in other news, the gates foundation donates ANOTHER $750 million to help fight malaria, and deploy vaccines.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/StoryGallery/GlobalHealth/SGGHGAVI-011013.htm
"In its first five years in operation, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization has saved more than 670,000 lives by improving access to childhood vaccines in the world's poorest countries. Over the next decade, many more lives will be saved as the alliance expands the introduction of new and underused vaccines."
If the act of unbundling apps caused the os to become unpopular, then the os didn't deserve the popularity it had in the first place. People seem to forget what an operating system actually is. An operating system is simply a platform to allow software to access your hardware. A better thing for everybody would be for them to simply include a cd which had "choices" of apps to install. This was the popular way to do it, though from reading most of these posts it seems the majority here are too young to remember those days. It's simple. Have a cd that has, hmm, IE, Netscape, Firefox, Opera, WMP, Winamp, QT, or whatever. Any apps they want to include. We really don't care, just give them all equal chance, then the BEST app for the job would be the most popular, and all would progress at a reasonable pace due to REAL COMPETITON. Wow, who woulda thunk it could be that easy. Trust me when I say that MS does NOT want you to think it's that easy. Simple brainwashing people. Get over it.
my scenario was it would become unpopular only because the competitor bundled those types of apps.
i dont think that will happen with mac/windows, but my point is still the same. if its a standard way of operating in the market, so competitors are doing it and can do it, restricting microsoft and only microsoft is only crippling them for being the market leader, not for doing something unfair.
so i'm just saying microsoft can't be restricted selectively, there has to be a standard. and the rules for the legality of including bundled software isn't clear.
anyway treefrog, a gui operating system today also includes the shell. i dont think you would want to argue its illegal to include windows explorer (though some have--ie ralph nader). i agree it would be best if the operating system gave you choices which programs to install. this would require windows to be made more flexible in how it handled the components, because as you know longhorn will use xml and html (and xaml) for its core rendering system, so unbundling IE will be a moot point. (competitors of microsoft have wanted to do something like this, so it wasnt a microsoft 'scheme') microsoft would have to find a way to allow the components to be switched out. i would like that, but if that were so, i still think ms would have a right to ask oems to keep their components together. and the oems having a cd of 10 different branded apps that people have to choose from i dont know if thats the best thing either.
If anybody thinks that if WMP and IE (or whatever little doodad you wanna talk about) were unbundled from the system, that would make other users run out and spend bucks on a mac rather than learn how to get and install other apps, well then I must say that you guys don't really seem to be nearly as confident in MS's greatness as you may appear at first glance.
As far as the shell, no, Linux does not include the shell, so there goes that theory as well. Yes, the shell (usually many different ones) are included in distributions created by different groups of people, but no, the gui shell is not an integral part of Linux, for one.
Last edited by 58940 on 25 Jan 2005 - 22:37
My point is, if bundling is normal practice for the software industry, is it possible to say to say Microsoft did illegal monopolistic practices, by doing something unfair. The question is whether Microsoft actually engaged in unfair practices. I don't believe antitrust laws are so clean cut especially when it comes to software. As I said, the court has to decide what is reasonable to bundle and what isn't.
btw, do you believe it should be considered an illegal practice for Microsoft to include the shell and windowing API in the OS? And what will happen if Microsoft ever ceases to be considered a monopoly, would they ever be able to rebundle?
Actually the larger issue here might be intellectual property laws that allow Microsoft to protect Windows
Last edited by 8493 on 25 Jan 2005 - 23:34
If the question truly is "whether Microsoft actually engaged in unfair practices", I offer the following evidence...
Microsoft *is* a monopoly in any, and every, legal sence in the market of desktop pcs. There *is* a large emerging market consisting of digital media. Microsoft *is* attempting to use it's desktop monopoly to gain another monopoly in the digital media market (there are deep and underlying issues surrounding this consisting of DRM and streaming media servers which I won't go into, but suffice it to say it's not even close to only being about playing your latest downloaded mp3s). This is an illegal, and unfair practice.
What boggles me about everybodies reaction to this actually, is that they're more concerned and po'd that MS is having to untie WMP (oh boo hoo), and seem to not even notice the "big" part of the decision in which within 120 days Microsoft is required "to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products."
I really have no problem with the gui shell, as it was originally an integral part of windows from the start.
Last edited by 58940 on 26 Jan 2005 - 04:03
iTunes uses a proprietary form of DRM in songs sold from the iTMS. Do you hate iTunes and iTMS too?
Same goes for Quicktime.
Microsoft at least provided a player that can play *any* kind of media file with the proper codec installed. It includes an MP3 decoder as well as WMA/WMV. In WMP 10 it also includes an MP3 encoder and lets you rip your CDs directly to the format of your choice.
Personally I think this was a horrible decision on the EU's part.
As well as Quicktime is more of an API than a player in OS X.
iTMS is fast becoming a monopoly but because it is so new people are leaving it be. I personally would not mind iTMS at all, if they were to open up licensing for other MP3 players/music stores.
They should earn their success with their music store, not force it through because of their success with the iPod (which is most definitely deserved, even if you don't like the player).
Jeez, Someone should tell my Car stereo,Mp3 player,Mobile Phone manufacutor that they shouldnt be able to play
As well as Quicktime is more of an API than a player in OS X.
I don't know about how iTunes works on the Mac and frankly I don't much care. On Windows iTunes has extremely limited codec compatability. As far as I'm aware, supporting only MP3 and AAC, and can only encode to the latter.
If you want, you can also play OGG format with an optional plugin.
threedaysdwn, stop spreading FUD.
windows media player isn't the same as itunes. quicktime is, and that's bundled with mac os. but since you mention itunes, and locks vs windows media player, and lock ins.. you just gotta love the lock ins everyone's buying in to with itunes.. i hope apple's pocket is comfortable, becuase everyone's gonna be there for a long, long time.
Quicktime "player" can be removed and replaced with another player. It is perfectly possible to replace quicktime in the finder with something else.
It is also possible to replace the finder completely with Pathfinder (a third party finder).
I do think Microsoft would appeal if the EU ruled that they had to stop making Windows Media Player anymore :p
or is it like this?
I get home with my nice new OS from microsoft, i'm excited, i have some media files i want to play on this new platform. I install the os, it all goes great, i put the cd in to play some media files... but WTF!!! NO MEDIA PLAYER!!!
in 2005, what operating system of any kind lacks the functionality to play any kind of media file?? I can't think of a single one. Next the likes of real will be arguing that they should have their player bundled with xp. Is that what you want?? coz that's what'll happen!! damn you eu, i know i live here, but i never thought you could be that stupid! I agree, make unbundling it easier, but to remove it is just bureaucracy gone mad.
Apple doens have to remove itunes because theyre not as hated as microsoft.
I think its a pretty petty of them to make microsoft remove the media player. is it really going to make any difference?
It's like Ford forcing all Ford cars to bundle with some X extra vs Ford forcing all diesel cars to include that piece.
Apple controls the mac platform because Apple created the mac platform. That is totally different from MSFT blocking entry of BeOS, OS/2 and linux from being installed by OEMs for the X86 platform which was "not" created by MSFT and it is "not" manufactured by MSFT. You could say that MSFT engaged in bullying and extortion. That my friends is "wrong" and illegal.
But you're forgetting something, not everybody had broadband.
Good one EU, I reckon people on dialup should forward all internet charges to download a media player that should be rightfully included i the OS to the EU and the EU should dish it out for making such a stupid decision. Atleast the money they stole from Microsoft will not be put into the pockets of some d*ckhead.
Remember, not everyone has broadband, and 6MB or whatever it is takes hours to download. Some people really need to think about other people and not themselves.
first of all, these hearings werent about bullying and extortion, they were about whether bundling was fair
but also, if apple gained a monopoly you think it would be perfectly fine whatever they did, just because they manufacture the hardware? why do you think apple wouldn't be forced by the govt to sell its computers with a choice of operating systems? (and btw, oems now can choose the OS perfectly fine)
competition is hurt whether you manufacture the hardware or not, and the point of antitrust laws is just to prevent unfairness to competition. apple isn't in a special position.
this is why i have stated repeatedly that antitrust laws aren't clear cut in regard to software, and they conflict with other laws--microsoft insisted that manufacturers couldn't do whatever they wanted with the OS, on legal grounds
Both apps are crap.
Problem for microsoft is how Media Player is so built into windows that it will be hard to remove.
IE as well...actually IE would be even harder. Aren't they lucky they don't need to remove that (yet).
Lets all laugh at Microsoft.
1) Pre-installed with PC you purchased from vendor such as Dell, HP, etc.
2) Use a CD from a friend, or a kiosk, or previous download.
3) Use ftp to get the installer
EDIT: Just saw the post above.
Besides, MS is not trying (yet) to make a monopoly on the "file transfer market"
i don't see any significant downfall on WMP market share.this option is for highly fuzzy customers,also common users will buy the complete Full version and install their own Music player,because they don't really care,and they don't need to.
the decision wasn't bad,there are people that are needing this though.
Hmm, maybe by finding and reading the instructions on how to do so? Oh, that's right, you said "typical computer user", and we all know they're too stoopid to read any instructions.
MS is going to be releasing Windows XP DMR (digital media removed).
I guess they have no choice at this point.. but it is pretty stupid. most people wont care about it.. A lot of casual users will not even be able to through in an audio cd to listen to.
Do you realize the error of your ways yet? Are either the iPod or the consoles "essential tools"? Do they run general purpose software? Are they used extensively in business? Are you stupid?
If you create a device, you are allowed to dictate what it can and cannot be used for. Supposidly, the X86 platform is supposed to be an "open" platform and yet MSFT did their best to control what OS ran on that platform even though they did not create or manufacture the device platform.
See the difference?
That individual could just go and purchase a Windows version with WMP included. As far as I know the EU is only forcing MS to release a Windows version without the WMP, but you can still buy the version with WMP.
Edit: That was also pointed out in response #10.
The relevant paragraph is about halfway down, beginning with, "As a result".
Both apps are crap.
Problem for microsoft is how Media Player is so built into windows that it will be hard to remove.
IE as well...actually IE would be even harder. Aren't they lucky they don't need to remove that (yet).
Errr.... IE would be easier to remove as its not so bound into XP as much, instead its simply an add-on to explorer so you can browse the internet, anyway its hard for them to make them remove IE as they can basically call it part of explorer if they so wished. Ohhh wait maybe the crazy people want them to remove exploer too... no wait lets all be crazy and just use DOS
EDIT: well if they are still going to be releasing it with wmp aswell as without, why not just make the one without windows media player more expensive that the one with it included and therefore no-one will buy the one with it excluded. lol, end of story what a stupid waste of the EUs time.
Nah it is. Everything web based would use the IE engine as common code so it's not made redundant. Features like browsing the internet in WMP, HTML Help, Help and Support Center, Explorer.exe IExplore.exe and anything else that uses the web in Windows by default, you can pretty mush assume that it uses the same IE code base. Granted this cause one issue for all but it also reduces the code duplication i.e. one HTML rendering engine for IE, one for HTML Help etc.
no its bad law, because what if (theoretically, but it won't) this would lead Apple to have a monopoly, because Windows was crippled and people prefered MacOS with a bundled media player. then you would have to start antitrust hearings for Apple. the best law is to apply equally without taking market share into concern.
and btw, the law isn't just about Microsoft using WMP to help themselves. its about using monopoly position to give an unfair advantage to a certain product. so, if Microsoft bundled Quicktime, and only Quicktime, in Windows, they should be held accountable just the same, because an unfair advantage is being given to Quicktime through the Windows monopoly. nobody would probably sue them for this because nobody hates Apple and everyone hates Microsoft, but this is how the law should apply if Microsoft is found guilty of violations based on bundling
Scroll down someone says hes a linux user.
Therfore because of him, Micrsoft doesnt have a monoply.
like i explained, if crippling Windows ends up giving an advantage to Mac, then it is ufair to let Apple do it and not Microsoft. because, like I said.. what if a court decree to remove a feature from Windows, gave Apple a monopoly? it would go in circles. besides, its bad for consumers to be faced with choices like this. if theres something unfair about bundling the law should deal with it in another way
Next they'll be telling BT there not allowed to own the telephone network
FAO EU - DONT MIX GOVERNMENTS WITH BUSINESS'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its its like a 5 year old telling you how to run a school!