Micro$oft punished for 500 Million €/$ by EU

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by KR
Remember: Bugs come in through open Windows.

And here's where the irony comes in. MS Windows is closed. Ok not so much irony ans it is funny and pathetic. Bugs are inescapable. Open or closed. But those that are open allow everyone to scrutinize for such things. ;)

[shevegen]

"the CHOICE command doesn't exist anymore."

User choice is a bad thing for MS anyway, so why even have a command which subtly hints that you, as a user, have a choice.
:>

[Shinigami-Sama]

Originally posted by communist
Same with IE - windows was running fine without it or it as an additional program. M$ has just 'tightly intergrated' it into newer windows versions so that removing it is impossible - though just to make sure everyone _is_ using it after all. In addition to this they can - after creating a monopoly in OS - use it to create another one in audio / video compression and delivering technologies (see bond's post).
After that they will go after another thing and so on on and until everything depends on M$ - now do you really want this? :devil: ;)
heh I;ve been tring to get IE off my machine for a week now
I even took it off useing the add/remove windows compents bar
and it;s still there
and even used spybot to "secure shredder" it 99 times
and it still comes back
but I;ve got firefox as my defualt now
goes to show you how far m$ goes to shaft us eh?
so I'm all for a spilt of M$
and this nice 'little' fine ;)

[Neo Neko]

Well if you are willing to pay you can get rid of it. :D http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

[Shinigami-Sama]

I think not
I thikn i;d rather learn how to find it in hte registry and get rid of it that way
or find a simalar app to do it
or I'll just live with siting my my comp

[Elias]

Originally posted by easybeat
As for the EU fine do you think it is to seriously prevent MS doing this again? or is it just a cash grab because the oppurtunity is there? I say it's a cash grab, but either way, we who don't like the greedy and very evil company Micro$oft benefit from this "cash grab" :)

[Inventive Software]

Isn't 500M euros about 1% of Microsoft's cash reserves? I seem to recall that they have more than $50 Billion dollars in reserve, so $1/2 Billion dollars ain't gonna hit em that hard.

I love bashing Microsoft, don't you?

[bond]

well people shouldnt mix up what the company is worth on the stock market (thats why billy is always handled as (one of) the richest) and what is really available for spending
thats a huge difference

[keel]

Originally posted by DaveId
.....prehaps we can find one thing that microsoft does differently from the average company...
How about Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and the average company is not, for starters?

[ChronoCross]

I'd just like to put in my two sense to this issue and if anything has been repeated just bear with me. Yes I know I'm bringing back an old thread.

1) The common computer user does not care what they use to play something as long as it takes little or no effort. Do you honestly think they will go searching around for a media player they don't know will work. I think not, everyone will still be using windows media player.

2) If you don't want to use windows media player then don't. I personally don't as I use either VLC or MPC.

3) That fine of 500mil is fine.....but requiring them to strip down their program to barebones because some companies are whining about it makes no sense. So now we are making it a requirement for programs to carry competing products simply to try and prevent a monopoly? So wil that mean if Nero gets a monopoly in terms of cash cow for mpeg-4 AVC does that mean we should start asking for them to include x.264, moonlight, and others in recode?

4) page 1 suggested breaking up microsoft......I am no fan of microsoft but breaking up a company is no solution. It takes away all reason for any company to improve their position in the market for fear of becoming too big and then being smashed to pieces.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ChronoCross
1) The common computer user does not care what they use to play something as long as it takes little or no effort. Do you honestly think they will go searching around for a media player they don't know will work. I think not, everyone will still be using windows media player.

Many of us BSD/Linux users started aout as common users. And just like other common users we got fed up with at least one aspect of Microsoft's software or behavior. Other Common users will to. Lots of people are getting fed up with viral/mal/spyware that Windows is so easily compromised with.

Originally posted by ChronoCross
2) If you don't want to use windows media player then don't. I personally don't as I use either VLC or MPC.

Microsoft uses their position as the pre-emenent make that only commercial OS vendor for cheap Intel (Linux does not count as it is not an OS. And has no commercial ownership/development) systems etc to hide the fact that people have a choice. Or to at least make a choice for change more dificult. With Microsoft using their monopoly platform for leverage they can keep even the most competitive competition from making any progress into almost any market. If you still consider yourself a common user think again. Common users are afraid to or don't even realize in most cases that they can install software on their wintell systems. Meaning MPC. Meaning VLC. And Microsoft likes it that way. Have you ever looked at the repair kiosks at places like best buy etc? Have you ever wondered WHY they have a "software install service"? Surely there is no money to be made in that as software is so easy to install. Or is there.

Originally posted by ChronoCross
3) That fine of 500mil is fine.....but requiring them to strip down their program to barebones because some companies are whining about it makes no sense.

No actually it makes perfect sense. You just don't understand. I used to share your current oppinion. Let me attempt to make an annalogy. Lets assume for a moment you want to start a small company to write an OS for home PCs. To even have a chance you will have to first accomplish one of two things. Either write an OS so jaw dropping so amaising it would be considered a killer app unto itself. Or you will have to make you OS as compatable with Microsoft Windows as possible. The first is rather rare. You as an individual would probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning. And the second course? Well you would probably rather be struck by lightning than attempt it as a comercial entity. First of all in order to be compatable you are going to have to implement alot of pattented methods/technologies. Which is all fine and dandy as long as you are not on the radar. But the moment you start to make a name for yourself and get sucess Microsoft will focus a fraction of their might on you and just like an ant under a magnifying glass in the sun you will sizzle and pop! Your company will collapse either in failed licensing attempts or trying to CYA in pattent littigation. It does not matter if the pattents are fraudulent. For desktop PCs etc Microsoft is the gate keeper. And they don't let anyone pass if they can help it. Whether it is fair competition or underhanded unethical business practices Microsoft is open to all possibilities. And it would not be the first time. Now replace OS with Media Player, Office Suite, or Developer Tools and it is all equally aplicable. And Microsoft is using their position in those markets to push their way into new markes. So they can say the same about Set Tops, Consoles, Online Music, and Media Formats/Codecs. And once they get that they will move on to other markets. Rinse lather repeat.

Can you see the problem? Innovation mostly comes from small groups or companies with low buerocracy and high technical agility. But Microsoft etc use their position to keep all the little guys out. So the only way you can make it in is to be one of the big guys from the start. But the big guys like where they are and change is risk. So innovation is kept under tight reigns. It is dangerous after all. So it is kept to a tiny trickle and charged premium prices to obtain. Minor improvements or bugfixes are lauded with the same hype and fanfare of the super bowl winners. As a result most people can't generally fathom or handl real innovation.

Originally posted by ChronoCross
So now we are making it a requirement for programs to carry competing products simply to try and prevent a monopoly?

It is called regulation. Or at least an attempt at. We have many such monopolies here in the states. They are generally reffered to as public utilities.

Originally posted by ChronoCross
So wil that mean if Nero gets a monopoly in terms of cash cow for mpeg-4 AVC does that mean we should start asking for them to include x.264, moonlight, and others in recode?

No. Only if they act unfairly or resort to illegal tactics that would lead them to becoming a convicted monopoly like Microsoft. Microsoft IS a CONVICTED monopoly. It would be REDICULOUS to expect it of any REGULAR software company.

Originally posted by ChronoCross
4) page 1 suggested breaking up microsoft......I am no fan of microsoft but breaking up a company is no solution. It takes away all reason for any company to improve their position in the market for fear of becoming too big and then being smashed to pieces.

No just the opposite. REGULAR companies have no reason to fear such things. Microsoft is NOT a Regular company. Breaking Microsoft up would force them idealy to compete with eachother. Leading to more competition, better products, and lower prices. Albeit with reduced profits. And that's the part Microsof does not like. In their golden age they could turn a profit for nothing. Now they can't. And are getting pissed / making mistakes.

[ChronoCross]

I just wanted to post on the last thing you said since it's 1:30am and I'm tired lol. I'll reread the rest later.

What do you consider a regular company? Idealy int he buisness world you are trying to be the best, to destroy all your competitors through innovation, that is the purpose of buisness is to make as much money as humanly possible.

Now if we start classifying companies with this goal as monopolistic then it takes away desire to be the best...so why start a company if your just going to be mediocre. All companies do things that we are gonna find quaestionable.

for example: the intel compiler I read awhile back actually puts in flags that says that if it's not an intel processor to disable all things like sse, sse2, mmx, etc on other processors. I personally thought it was a bad decision but aren't they within their rights as a product maker to make decisions about their products?

i pose a question. IF lets say microsoft wasn't making any money at all....remember this is a hypothetical. but still owned 98% of the market in terms of usage. would they have still been convicted of a monopoly?

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ChronoCross
I just wanted to post on the last thing you said since it's 1:30am and I'm tired lol. I'll reread the rest later.

What do you consider a regular company? Idealy int he buisness world you are trying to be the best, to destroy all your competitors through innovation, that is the purpose of buisness is to make as much money as humanly possible.

No the goal was never really to destroy your competitors. If you were any sort of real capitalist your response wouild be to outperform/innovate your competitors through fair ethical practices to obtain higher market share. That is more or less what the ideal called capitalism puts forth. It relies on flawed human personalities to make decisions that benefit us all.

Originally posted by ChronoCross
Now if we start classifying companies with this goal as monopolistic then it takes away desire to be the best...so why start a company if your just going to be mediocre. All companies do things that we are gonna find quaestionable.

Regular companies have nothing to fear from it. If your are a regular company who has not achieved market dominance by and or still uses unethical illegal means to supress the competition. You have nothing to worry about. You keep making this jump to a logical fallicy that Microsoft is the typical regular company. They are not. Yes companies behave unethically from time to time. But many don't have enough power on their own to control the markets they are in. Microsoft does. That is why when Microsoft does it it is worse and requires special action.

Originally posted by ChronoCross
for example: the intel compiler I read awhile back actually puts in flags that says that if it's not an intel processor to disable all things like sse, sse2, mmx, etc on other processors. I personally thought it was a bad decision but aren't they within their rights as a product maker to make decisions about their products?

Yes. Yes they are. Because there are quite a few companies putting out compilers etc. Not the least of which is Microsoft. There is also Borland. The Code Warrior products. Not to mention many others of varrying language and license. In short Intel does not have the compiler market cornered. They make a decent product for their chipset. Other than that their compiler offerings are rather meager and not that much better than other offerings. There are some places GCC actually beats the intel compiler on their own chipset. Intel through their work on their compiler does not keep small players out of that market. If anything they help push the envelope and foster competition with other compiler devs etc. Microsoft does not.

Originally posted by ChronoCross
i pose a question. IF lets say microsoft wasn't making any money at all....remember this is a hypothetical. but still owned 98% of the market in terms of usage. would they have still been convicted of a monopoly?

Yes. Being a monopoly is not a function directly related to profits. Microsoft could be raking in the cash but have such a bloated middle management structure etc that after all the bills are paid net profit would be cose to zero. This is not far from the truth today. Being a monopoly is when a company with market control uses undue force to remove all competition from the market thus perpetuating the monopoly. Nothing says a monopoly MUST turn a profit to be classified as a monopoly. That just typically happens with monopolies because they can set the prices wherever they like. Even a 1000% markup is achievable. Monopolies are bad for the market and consuumers. Microsoft had a rather big part to play in the tech buble burst in the late 90's.

[shevegen]

Instead of losening MS monopoly the EU should enable weaker competitors to enter the market easily, and not tossing in huge obstacles like trivia patents which help those that have more money during court cases.

[Joe Fenton]

Read Microsoft's SEC 10Ks some time. You'll notice right off that only two divisions make a profit: Windows and Office, usually through forced bundling. All other division sell at a loss ON PURPOSE to drive the competition under. MS can do that because the Windows and Office divisions make enough money to cover the losses. THAT is why MS NEEDS to be broken up into separate companies. If the VisualStudio divsion can't count on being funded by the Windows and Office divisions, they'd have to compete fairly with companies like Metrowerks. Same argument for other divisions. Imagine if the XBox division actually had to show a profit on its own...

[Neo Neko]

Spot on Joe. Indeed as far as most things go Microsoft's products are rarely the best. Nowadays at least. There is no need to be. No one can compete as no one has matching resources. Save for maybe opensource. :D

[ChronoCross]

@neo neko
Destruction of your competitors is generally a byproduct of a well designed buisiness practices. Even honest buisnesses simply provide better services/products that can push others out of the market. I happen to know someone who owns a grocery store and he through honesty as well as some rather inovative and hard work was able to beat out all the other grocery stores in town.

@neo neko again
Microsofts products are indeed generally never the best. Their monopoly stems from the early 90's OS war. Everyone started out ont he same foot(MS and apple) at least. Still in the end MS won. I still don't think they should break up MS. I do however think their buisness practices should be looked over but I think that anyone who takes a loss in several departments simply to "drive out the competition" is just a ridiculous thought. It just means they are trying to inovate as well. If people buy in to their product then that must mean it is good in some ways. If it wasn't then people would have no reason to buy it.

@shevegen
True man. There are other fators to lack of compeitors.

@everyone
Has there ever been a EU competitor to MS in the OS and OFFICE? I lack all knowledge on it.

[Doobie]

Sorry I just don't agree with this Microsoft bashing.
So what if they are a monopoly it's their competitors and the various governments involved faults for letting them get like that in the first place.
Would you expect Coca-Cola to include a can of Pepsi in every 6 pack they sell, or course not. Microsoft should be able to include whatever software they like and it's up to us the consumer not to buy it if we don't approve.
As for the $500million fin, well the EU have just decided to milk the Cash Cow rather than tackle some real issues.

When did Coke ever force soft drink buyers of competing products to pay for Coke whether or not they buy Coke? Microsoft did this back in the OS/2 days, and was forced to end it with a consent decree with the government. Microsoft has a long history of abusing its monopoly power to keep down the competition.

If you wish to be a rabid anti-government type, remember that Microsoft only has a near monopoly because of government copyright and patent law.

As for the 500-million-dollar fine, that's pocket change to Microsoft.

[hyperenrgy]

i personaly always use real one player or quicktime. i dont like wmp

[Arachnotron]

Has there ever been a EU competitor to MS in the OS and OFFICE? I lack all knowledge on it.Wasn't StarOffice originally a commercial product by a German company called StarDivision?

[Neo Neko]

@neo neko
Destruction of your competitors is generally a byproduct of a well designed buisiness practices. Even honest buisnesses simply provide better services/products that can push others out of the market. I happen to know someone who owns a grocery store and he through honesty as well as some rather inovative and hard work was able to beat out all the other grocery stores in town.

Destruction of competitors is generally a byproduct of a poorly managed competitor. It is by no means common or general for competitors to be run out of business or self destruct. Those are extrodinary circumstances.


@neo neko again
Microsofts products are indeed generally never the best. Their monopoly stems from the early 90's OS war. Everyone started out ont he same foot(MS and apple) at least. Still in the end MS won.

That is a very superficial oppinion. Microsoft won yes. But how did they win? Was it by providing better more compatable, more secure, and competitively priced software? Or was it by threatening vendors who wished to offer competing products, breaking compatability against competitors products, and all the while selling their products for more than reasonable markup? If you are to believe the verdict of the US DOJ Antitrust case against Microsoft the latter is clearly the case. Microsoft is not "your average business". Everyone needs to give up on the argument "we should not do it because it will discourage all the other regular companies.". It is a false argument.


I still don't think they should break up MS. I do however think their buisness practices should be looked over

Been there done that. The US DOJ concluded just as the EU commision has that Microsoft behaved unethically/illegaly abusing their position to the detrement of all their competitors and many of their partners. In order to make effective arguments you should really be up to date on your topics and their history.


but I think that anyone who takes a loss in several departments simply to "drive out the competition" is just a ridiculous thought.

I am not sure what you are getting at with that comment. Are you saying that Microsoft is rediculous because that is what they have done? Or are you saying that anyone who point out the fact that Microsoft sells almost all it's products at a loss nowadays save for Windows and Office to drive out competition in new markets is being rediculous?


It just means they are trying to inovate as well.

No actually it is generally the opposite. Most innovation comes from small cash strapped startups. In competitive/innovative markets you generally do not earn enough money from one or two divisions to fund a much much larger company. That typically only happens when you have market controll and are able to push rediculously high consumer product markups. And if you have market controll there is very little incentive to innovate or compete.


If people buy in to their product then that must mean it is good in some ways. If it wasn't then people would have no reason to buy it.

If people buy their product it may be the only option offered to most people. Just because people buy it does not mean it is good in any way. Go to any large consumer electronics store where the average person would buy a computer and accesories. How many non Apple computers there run or are sold with anything but windows and related loss leader products from Microsoft. Best Buy has 0% that are not sold with Windows.(hell they typically don't even cary Macs!) Same for Comp USA and almost every other retailer. And on the rare occasion there is an intel system not sold with Windows it is not generally sold with any os at all. And if someone were to want to buy an OS Windows is often the first/only thing suggested or avalible. You think it is limited to Electronics retail outlets? Think again. Go to Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway, etc, etc, etc and try to buy a consumer desktop system with any OS other than Windows. Good luck. Best case scenario would be that they would sell you a machine installed with Windows and offer you a free disk with a Linux distribution they will not support. Yep sounds like Microsoft has some pretty stiff competition in the consumer market. At least considdering the fact that all their competitors are shut out.


@everyone
Has there ever been a EU competitor to MS in the OS and OFFICE? I lack all knowledge on it.

Not in both markets at once. Typically a regular company only does one or the other. I am not sure about the rest of europe but GB was at one time largely using Acorn OS on RISC machines like BBC Micros etc. Microsoft let europe alone for most of the 70's and 80's. Building up their monopoly in the US. Which they then used to leverage foriegn markets and put their foriegn competitors out of business. Destroying the foriegn markets software economys. Not only has Microsoft dammaged our US economy. But many European ones as well.

[Neo Neko]

Wasn't StarOffice originally a commercial product by a German company called StarDivision?

WOW! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice) You sir are indeed correct! I only became aware of it after Sun bought it apparently. This I did not know. Interesting.......

[outsiders71]

Bundling WMP doesn't control you from encoding with <insert here>, you can still go download them and install them if you want. M$ isn't forcing you to use WMP.

They should stop bundling Notepad, Solitaire and the Calculator tool as well. They are preventing us from getting real applications we like :rolleyes:.

[bond]

m$ now needs to pay 2 million € per day till they change their business tactics as required by the eu

[Chainmax]

So, an equivalent to dropping a nickel at the mall fountain each day, huh?

[SirCanealot]

I hate this discussion.

They want them not to bundle WMP with Windows? Bullcrap. What will the first thing my parents do when thet get their new PC with no WMP? "How do I play my media filers? What shall I use? How do I use this?" WMP provides a recognisable and simple program for people to use, which works most of the time. Should they not bundle codecs either? "How do I play my mp3 files which played on my computer fine beforehand." "Use winamp or foobar." "where do I get these? How do I use them?"
Think I have time for that crap? No.......

Yeah, I agree. They're cutting off people using things like Notepad++ and Lotus. Hell, by budling Wordpad with Windows, they're stopping people from even using other microsoft products, like Word!

This is like saying that steros shouldn't come with cars. Kitchens with a home. A remote with a TV. It really annoys me, and I see no problems with WMP being bludleded with Windows. I don't use WMP; I mostly use Zoom Player and a little bit of MPC. Do my parents? No, they mostly use WMP because it's piss easy to use and comes with the damn PC. And my parents are fairly PC literate; there's tons of people who're worse than them...
Hell, I helped my mum rip some mp3s for her media player with WMP. What do the EU want me to tell her to do? "Okay, mum, download and install DBPowerAmp, rip them to FLAC, then download and install Foobar and use the latest version of LAME to encode them to mp3, or skip Foobar and use command prompt."
Sure, my method is better, but is she going to be able to do that or want to do it? No.......

[bond]

bundling products harming competition is illegal, simple as that

[Doom9]

it isn't about the player, it's about the player supporting basically only Microsoft codecs and only loading Microsoft codecs from the net. If WMP offered to download and install divx, xvid, and x264 decoders and supported ogm/mkv/mp4/mov containers (or offered to download the appropriate filters when needed), nobody would object.
Plus, with 80% market share, there are additional requirements in doing business that do not apply to a company having a considerably smaller market share.. it's all there to prevent monopolies (even the most bleeding heart free market admirer and regulation hater will have to admit that monopolies are bad - they run all that is good about having a free market).

[Doobie]

They want them not to bundle WMP with Windows? Bullcrap.

MS has supplied non-WMP versions of Windows. But, no one bought it (because it was the same price as regular windows).

Forcing MS to provide a non-WMP version of Windows is a dumb way to address Microsoft's abusive practices.

I'd strip MS of copyright protection of the existing Windows API, for restitution as well as to stimulate competition. And, I'd protect the right of PC makers to bundle any software they want with their PCs.

[bond]

m$ didnt do enough to change their illegal practices. thats why they now pay 2 million per day till they change them

[zambelli]

it isn't about the player, it's about the player supporting basically only Microsoft codecs and only loading Microsoft codecs from the net. If WMP offered to download and install divx, xvid, and x264 decoders and supported ogm/mkv/mp4/mov containers (or offered to download the appropriate filters when needed), nobody would object.
I hate to interject, but I have to disagree with this part. All of the fuss has indeed been about the player, because it wasn't Intervideo or DivX that were objecting - it was Real Networks, Apple and other player makers at the time. Remember that this case is actually fairly old at this point - it goes back to the 1990s.

I think it's pretty natural that a Microsoft player is built primarily around Microsoft codecs. Real Player is built primarily around Real codecs, and Quicktime around Apple codecs. Do either Real or Quicktime ship with DivX support? I don't think so.

I'm not sure if you remember, but a long time ago 3rd party codecs did in fact get hosted on the MS codec server. Codecs such as Cinepak, Indeo, Duck, L&H, Voxware, etc. What seemed like a good idea at the time eventually became a problem. Some codecs changed owners (Indeo: Intel --> Ligos), some codecs entirely lost owners, some were terribly buggy, and most were not updated and maintained regularly enough. So essentially, 3rd parties' problems suddenly became Microsoft's problems because now MS testers had to test somebody else's code and we couldn't even fix the bugs because we didn't own the code. After the big security push of SP2, the decision was made to phase out support for any 3rd party codecs that we didn't own the code to. So it wasn't a political decision. It was simply a business decision to stop supporting something we had no way of actually supporting. If we don't own the code, we can't vouch for its functionality and security, and that makes it very difficult for a business to be accountable to its customers.

As far as support for XviD, OGM, MKV and other OSS formats/codecs goes. Well, I think you can see how that could easily turn into a proprietary vs OSS legal issue. Microsoft doesn't ship OSS code with Windows. Even offering binaries on a codec server could be pretty iffy from a legal perspective. Wouldn't that technically even break a few GPLs, offering binary code without source? And we couldn't own the source in order to do maintainance on it because, once again, we don't handle open-source code, and I would imagine most of the OSS community wouldn't want Microsoft touching any of it anyway. ;)

Well, I'll try to stay out of most of this discussion since a) I'm somewhat biased, and b) I shouldn't be discussing legal cases anyway. I just wanted to clarify the whole codec server issue, for sake of accuracy of information. :)

[Shinigami-Sama]

quicktime allows for external codecs and filters to be added, thats how I got dvix to work on an Emac3

all they have to do is add a way to import new formats into the player.

[Doom9]

it was Real Networks, Apple and other player makers at the time.And can WMP play RM/RMVB/MOV/MP4 files? It can't.... ;) And since OEMs weren't allowed to install those other players.. there's a clear pattern in trying to lock out any non MS stuff..

And Microsoft never hosted the important codecs.. at no point in time was it ever possible to play a file encoded with a reasonable codec (DivX 3 and up).. to this date Windows needs third party software to play MPEG-2 content.

[zambelli]

And can WMP play RM/RMVB/MOV/MP4 files? It can't.... ;) And since OEMs weren't allowed to install those other players.. there's a clear pattern in trying to lock out any non MS stuff..
I don't know about OEMs not being allowed to install other players. I've seen plenty of OEM machines with players other than WMP, but perhaps you're talking about some older practice dating back to the time the case originated.

Why would WMP be expected to play RM/RMVB/MOV/MP4 files? In fact, if it did, couldn't you make an even bigger case that Microsoft is monopolizing the player market by removing the customers' need to install other companies' players? "Oh, I don't need to install Real Player because WMP already handles those formats." I would imagine Real folks wouldn't be too thrilled about that either. It's kind of a lose-lose situation for Microsoft. If MS supports only its own formats, then it's accused of discriminating against other formats. If it supports other formats, then it's accused of discrimating against other players and products.

And Microsoft never hosted the important codecs.. at no point in time was it ever possible to play a file encoded with a reasonable codec (DivX 3 and up).. to this date Windows needs third party software to play MPEG-2 content.
Oh come on now, I know you know the answers to both these arguments! DivX3 was a hacked MS codec! You can't seriously expect a company to host a hacked version of its own binary? :eek: As for MPEG-2, the issue there has always been the MPEG-LA decoder license fee. Oh, and if MS had decided to take the hit and cough up the money for an MPEG-2 license with each XP copy, don't you think Cyberlink and Intervideo might've considered that "abuse of dominant market position"?

[zambelli]

quicktime allows for external codecs and filters to be added, thats how I got dvix to work on an Emac3
all they have to do is add a way to import new formats into the player.
Microsoft supports that too. It's called DirectShow. ;)
Even the DivX plugin for Mac is a 3rd party plugin.

[ricardo.santos]

just my opinion: from a consumer point of view i think the E.U. is only after the money, i see no problem with having WMP on my PC as i have a choice to download other players. I use VLC.

they´re just after the money, 2 milion a day.


Why would WMP be expected to play RM/RMVB/MOV/MP4 files? In fact, if it did, couldn't you make an even bigger case that Microsoft is monopolizing the player market by removing the customers' need to install other companies' players? "Oh, I don't need to install Real Player because WMP already handles those formats." I would imagine Real folks wouldn't be too thrilled about that either. It's kind of a lose-lose situation for Microsoft. If MS supports only its own formats, then it's accused of discriminating against other formats. If it supports other formats, then it's accused of discrimating against other players and products.


Oh come on now, I know you know the answers to both these arguments! DivX3 was a hacked MS codec! You can't seriously expect a company to host a hacked version of its own binary? :eek: As for MPEG-2, the issue there has always been the MPEG-LA decoder license fee. Oh, and if MS had decided to take the hit and cough up the money for an MPEG-2 license with each XP copy, don't you think Cyberlink and Intervideo might've considered that "abuse of dominant market position"?


I hate this discussion.

They want them not to bundle WMP with Windows? Bullcrap. What will the first thing my parents do when thet get their new PC with no WMP? "How do I play my media filers? What shall I use? How do I use this?" WMP provides a recognisable and simple program for people to use, which works most of the time. Should they not bundle codecs either? "How do I play my mp3 files which played on my computer fine beforehand." "Use winamp or foobar." "where do I get these? How do I use them?"
Think I have time for that crap? No.......

Yeah, I agree. They're cutting off people using things like Notepad++ and Lotus. Hell, by budling Wordpad with Windows, they're stopping people from even using other microsoft products, like Word!

This is like saying that steros shouldn't come with cars. Kitchens with a home. A remote with a TV. It really annoys me, and I see no problems with WMP being bludleded with Windows. I don't use WMP; I mostly use Zoom Player and a little bit of MPC. Do my parents? No, they mostly use WMP because it's piss easy to use and comes with the damn PC. And my parents are fairly PC literate; there's tons of people who're worse than them...
Hell, I helped my mum rip some mp3s for her media player with WMP. What do the EU want me to tell her to do? "Okay, mum, download and install DBPowerAmp, rip them to FLAC, then download and install Foobar and use the latest version of LAME to encode them to mp3, or skip Foobar and use command prompt."
Sure, my method is better, but is she going to be able to do that or want to do it? No......

[Doom9]

Why would WMP be expected to play RM/RMVB/MOV/MP4 files? In fact, if it did, couldn't you make an even bigger case that Microsoft is monopolizing the player market by removing the customers' need to install other companies' players? "Oh, I don't need to install Real Player because WMP already handles those formats." I would imagine Real folks wouldn't be too thrilled about that either.Why would you need the real player? Real makes no money with it.. it makes money with content, and people can't play it unless they have to install a third party player, which is beyond the capabilities of most people (that this is a sad state of affairs is a different matter entirely.. ) The same essentially goes for Apple.. you only need to buy their player if you want to use the encoder facility.
The main reason the WMP plays but MS formats is to condition people to only expect those formats. It is right in line with the refusal to support ODF.. who needs Office when you can have a free alternative that may not be as good and have as many features, but does enough to satisfy 99% of all user's needs?

Of course, from your point of view, this is how most corporations conduct business, and that's why we have laws to limit certain business practices.

And media players are a small part of the whole affair.. the more important part is opening up APIs, then there's using the desktop market dominance to push other server operating systems out of the market and software licensing.

[SeeMoreDigital]

I'm interested to know, which integrated applications do people here feel should be removed from Windows XP?

[bond]

the reason for the fine has been described here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=463819#post463819

[Sirber]

I think it's pretty natural that a Microsoft player is built primarily around Microsoft codecs. Real Player is built primarily around Real codecs, and Quicktime around Apple codecs. Do either Real or Quicktime ship with DivX support? I don't think so.Last time I checked RealPlayer had MPEG4 support.

[bond]

quicktime also supports mpeg-4

[SeeMoreDigital]

the reason for the fine has been described here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=463819#post463819Indeed...

However, I think it would be interesting to obtain opinions from Doom9 forum members, as to which WinXP features they think should be removed!


Cheers

[Sirber]

MSN, WMP, IE, mspaint ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Thanks Sirber....

I've got another. How about getting rid of WinXP's embedded CD burning software? That can't be fair!

Anything else anyone?

[GodofaGap]

Preferably nothing at all. It's all fine and dandy that Microsoft offers a stripped down version of Windows because it must, but when given the choice I'd rather keep the functionality. I'm quite fond of the CD burning feature.

quicktime also supports mpeg-4
They support in the Apple way. But they certainly don't support DivX.

[karl_lillevold]

As you may have seen on digg.com or other news sites, Real will soon make available WMV decoder s/w for Linux. I am intentionally refraining from adding any opinion to this statement.

[SeeMoreDigital]

They support in the Apple way. But they certainly don't support DivX.According to their web site, QuickTime player can support DivX: -

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/resources/components.html


Not tried it though....

[GodofaGap]

I don't want to get into hair splitting with this, but a component is not out-of-the-box support. You can also install a DivX DirectShow filter for WMP.

But AFAIK QT doesn't support any MPEG4 ASP feature and it certainly doesn't support DivX subtitles and chapters.

[Shinigami-Sama]

played divx5 rips on an Emac
had differant gamma so it was slightly off but played well

[zambelli]

As you may have seen on digg.com or other news sites, Real will soon make available WMV decoder s/w for Linux. I am intentionally refraining from adding any opinion to this statement.
I'm guessing that's based on a VC-1 license?