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

[bond]

The European Commission (maybe the highest institution of the European Union) punished m$ to pay a 500 million € (over the thumb thats the same value in $ ;) ) for abusing its monopoly power
thats the highest value ever used by the commission

mainly thats the case because of m$ windows media player instelled by default on all windows systems (used to push its wm9 crap formats, in a more and more important market)

read more (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/45919) (german)

now we have it from the official side what type of company m$ is. i hope this will soil their reputation and help open source alternatives

they deserve it!!!


and my personal opinion :D
dont use the windows media formats!!!

[GIR]

That's It!! I've had it, I've had enough of all this microsoft bashing, hmm, umm, nah, please continue the verbal onslaught for our viewing pleasure :D

[Wilbert]

The European Commission (maybe the highest institution of the European Union)
Sorry for being off topic :) But, the highest institution of the EU is the European Court of Justice.

[virus]

Originally posted by bond
now we have it from the official side what type of company m$ is. i hope this will soil their reputation and help open source alternatives

unfortunately, not one of these 500.000.000 euro will effectively go to support open source and/or freeware projects... that would have been great. :(

[bond]

Originally posted by virus
unfortunately, not one of these 500.000.000 euro will effectively go to support open source and/or freeware projects... that would have been great.not directly of course, but many firms/governments will hopefully realise now that m$ _is_ abusing their powers (which effectively means that people have to pay higher prices for software products than they would have to pay if m$ wasnt dominating the market) and will therefore use other products (like some governments already use linux)

Originally posted by GIR
That's It!! I've had it, I've had enough of all this microsoft bashing, hmm, umm, nah, please continue the verbal onslaught for our viewing pleasurewell the point is the european commission doesnt enforce a half a billion penalty because they love bashing m$, or have an "anit-micro$oft" attidude :rolleyes:
they do this for good reasons (or said the other way round, the reasons why m$ can be bashed are worth 500.000.000 € :D )

Originally posted by Wilbert
Sorry for being off topic :) But, the highest institution of the EU is the European Court of Justice.well thats why i said the commission is maybe/one of the highest institutions of the EU
you cant say that there is ONE highest institution in any state, but if you make a list, its maybe the commission, the court, the council and the parliament

[echooff]

well the point is the european commission doesnt enforce a half a billion penalty because they love bashing m$, or have an "anit-micro$oft" attidude

Its a money grab, pure and simple. The proof will be when you discover none of the affected customers will be compensated.

[bond]

Originally posted by echooff
Its a money grab, pure and simple. The proof will be when you discover none of the affected customers will be compensated.you are mixing different things up
the decision of the commission has nothing directly to do with affected customers

the commission is not a court where mistreated customers can sue on getting money back (of course they can still do this at the European Court of Justice or in their home countries, maybe with success)
the commission decides whether or not a company violates the european antitrust law and if thats the case it has to take steps to change this, not less not more

[communist]

Good :)
M$ already plans to appeal that decision - I hope they fail miserably :p

[Sirber]

What'S the big deal by bundeling WMP with windows? They do worse things!, like bundeling windows with every PC :devil:

[bond]

Originally posted by Sirber
What'S the big deal by bundeling WMP with windows?in the official statement (http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/04/382|0|RAPID&lg=en&display=) of the european commission on the 500 million € fine to punish micro$oft it says:

Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine
...
the investigation concluded that the ubiquity which was immediately afforded to WMP as a result of it being tied with the Windows PC OS artificially reduces the incentives of music, film and other media companies, as well software developers and content providers to develop their offerings to competing media players.

As a result, Microsoft's tying of its media player product has the effect of foreclosing the market to competitors, and hence ultimately reducing consumer choice, since competing products are set at a disadvantage which is not related to their price or quality.

Available data already show a clear trend in favour of WMP and Windows Media technology. Absent intervention from the Commission, the tying of WMP with Windows is likely to make the market "tip" definitively in Microsoft's favour. This would allow Microsoft to control related markets in the digital media sector, such as encoding technology, software for broadcasting of music over the Internet and digital rights management etc.

More generally, the Commission is concerned that Microsoft's tying of WMP is an example of a more general business model which, given Microsoft's virtual monopoly in PC operating systems, deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in any technologies which Microsoft could conceivably take interest in and tie with Windows in the future.man, they are speaking from my heart, all the arguments the community brought up for years, finally confirmed by maybe one of the most important governmental organisations worldwide

"an example of a more general business model"
"foreclosing the market to competitors"
"controlling markets"
"reducing consumer choice"

my conclusion: dont use the windows media formats! use, point to and support the alternatives!

[echooff]

No Bond I am not mixing things up. If the true end result was forcing a seperation of the media player, there would have been a different penalty. Microsoft can write this off as a cost of doing business until they get the proper bribe into the proper pocket or political party coffer.

[mf]

What I find a definite outrage with the WMP bundling, is that in Windows XP SP1, though you do actually have a choosing applet thingie for app association (1st or 3rd party), when you deselect WMP, IT WILL STILL BE ASSOCIATED TO FILETYPES until you deselect all the filetypes FROM WITHIN WMP ITSELF! For some weird reason WMP goes around standard filetype association that other apps can control. What's even worse is I have to accept some license agreement that I don't even want to accept (though in my country clickthrough license agreements aren't lawfully valid), to access the app, so I can disable the file accosiations.

[albertgasset]

Originally posted by bond
The European Commission (maybe the highest institution of the European Union) punished m$ to pay a 500 million €

Also, Microsoft have to release a Windows version without WMP for computer vendors in 90 days. And make Windows more "transparent", giving more information about the OS to competitors, so they can compete with Microsoft products, in a period of 120 days.

[easybeat]

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.

[kilg0r3]

Read the second part of my signature ...

[Joe Fenton]

Originally posted by easybeat
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.

None of your statements make any sense. Coca-cola isn't a monopoly. They often aren't even the leading cola distributor. If Coca-cola had 95% of all sodas sold in the world, THEN your comparison would be valid.

It is not the competitor's fault MS is a monopoly - MS drove them under using illegal tactics. They have been found guilty of illegal business tactics several times.

It can be argued it is the government's fault for not making the punishment fit the crime when MS keeps losing in court. The current DOJ settlement is a good example. Breaking MS up would have been a good start to fixing the problem - the settlement wasn't even a slap on the wrist. MS is worse today than when they lost to the DOJ a couple years ago.

The EC is trying to do better than the US did - they gave a pretty big fine (not big to MS, but I don't think you'd get higher), and forcing MS to change how they distribute Windows and WMP. It's not much, but it's better than the stupid DOJ was willing to do to a convicted criminal enterprise.

They need to go back to the original punishment - breaking up MS based on its divisions. It worked for AT&T/Bell, so it should work for MS. Also throw the top brass at MS in prison for a few years. How many other executives can plot to destroy the lifes of competitors, carry out those plots, lie in court, bribe the US government, and get away with it scot-free?

[bond]

Originally posted by easybeat
Sorry I just don't agree with this Microsoft bashing.again this goes beyond "simple m$ bashing of some unimportant users in some unimportant internet forum" there was a decision of a governmental organisation based on real laws after 4 years of examinations and negotiations

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.you dont get the decision:
the decision is not about helping mistreated users, its about helping mistreated competitors (which indirectly affects us users again, as when there are monopolies we have less product choice, higher prices, less innovations...)
also m$ isnt forced to include any competitors products into their software, the decision is about forbidding m$ to exclude/discriminate competitors products right from the start

Read the second part of my signature ...
-> Did you know that M$ has 53 Billion (Mrd.) Dollar of cash reserve?
...
As for the $500million fin, well the EU have just decided to milk the Cash Cow rather than tackle some real issues.again you guys missed big parts of the decision:
m$ doesnt only have to pay the fine, it also has to offer windows without the media player and open important parts of their OS, used protocols/apis, so that their competitors get the possibility to produce products which can directly interoperate with windows, which wasnt the case till now


guys, take some law and economics courses at your university and you will better understand what this decision really means and what a big step this is

[Joe Fenton]

m$ doesnt only have to pay the fine, it also has to offer without the media player and open important parts of their OS, used protocols/apis, so that their competitors get the possibility to produce products which can directly interoperate with windows, which wasnt the case till now

They'll probably do like they did recently here in the US - offer a license for the SPECIFICATION sheet for protocols/APIs for $50,000 each.

"You need three different spec sheets? That'll be $150,000."

MS is arguing to the DOJ that virtually no one is buying their $50,000 API specifications proving that no one needs them, so they should be allowed to make them secret again.

[bond]

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
They'll probably do like they did recently here in the US - offer a license for the SPECIFICATION sheet for protocols/APIs for $50,000 each.

"You need three different spec sheets? That'll be $150,000."

MS is arguing to the DOJ that virtually no one is buying their $50,000 API specifications proving that no one needs them, so they should be allowed to make them secret again. if you read the decision of the commission you will see that there will be a Monitoring Trustee, under the authority of the Commission, to ensure that Microsoft does not charge too high a price for the information.

[Joe Fenton]

Let's pray they do a better job than the DOJ.

[bond]

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
Let's pray they do a better job than the DOJ. whats doj exactly?

[smiller667]

DOJ - Department of Justice.

On a different note, the fine could have been much higher - up to 3 billion Euro (10% of a company's worldwide turnover, this is quoted from a news service).

[easybeat]

Fair enough I won't cry over MS getting split up but how was this situation allowed to develop?
Let's face it MS exploited a weakness in the laws and rose to a position of dominance, so whether you like them or loathe them they have been allowed to do that and in business they are in a position that every major corporation in the world would like to be in - no serious competitors. Squashing the competition is every businessman's dream and allows them to stiff the consumer.

The fault therefore is not entirely MS's, the majority of the blame must lie with the governments who have allowed them to get to this position.
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?

[Doobie]

Easybeat, your analogy is bad. At the very least, you should be talking about a vending machine that you own rather than a six-pack than coke produces. Microsoft makes the soda, but Dell sells the vending machines.

Suppose Coke was so popular that you had to stock it in your vending machines to have customers. But, suppose that Coke forbid you from stocking competing brands in your machine? Would you agree that Coke is going too far? That's exactly what Microsoft has done in the past. And, that is typical of their anti-competative behavior. They abuse the market in ways only a monopoly has the ability to do.

As Microsoft has been grossely abusive of the Free Market in the past, it is reasonable to be less tolerant with their behavior now. They do have a virtual monopoly of the OS and it would reasonably be harmful if they extend that monopoly into media players (and thus encoding, etc.). Maybe it's their right, as you seem to believe, that MS should have the right use their monopoly power to grow monopolies in related areas. But, I think if MS doesn't want the government in the way, they should forfeit of government copyright and patent protections. Afterall, the only legitimate function of government intrusion with copyright and patent law is to stimulate creation, and microsoft doesn't want that.


Originally posted by easybeat
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.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by easybeat
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.

Tipical opinions of the uneducated masses. Shallow, misguided, and missing the point.

Originally posted by easybeat
Fair enough I won't cry over MS getting split up but how was this situation allowed to develop?
Let's face it MS exploited a weakness in the laws and rose to a position of dominance, so whether you like them or loathe them they have been allowed to do that and in business they are in a position that every major corporation in the world would like to be in - no serious competitors. Squashing the competition is every businessman's dream and allows them to stiff the consumer.

The fault therefore is not entirely MS's, the majority of the blame must lie with the governments who have allowed them to get to this position.
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?

After everyone explaning it to you, you still don't get it do you? You need to educate yourself. Let me suggest a few items for basic reading/viewing and a little condensed background history to get you started. First head over to your local library and check out a copy of "Pirates of Silicon Valley" (http://alt.tnt.tv/movies/tntoriginals/pirates/) on VHS or DVD. Whichever one they have. It gives some very good background for the strugle and shows you who exactly is responsible. This video is required viewing at most technical institutions and even universities for those in CIS and especially the IT fields. It's kinda like "See Spot Run." for the computer related fields. Second head over here (http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.html) and read a rather unbiased account of what exactly the great innovator has actually innovated. Don't be suprised if you can count them all on your fingers and not need to break out your toes. Then check out this (http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/notinvented.html) page to get a good account of who actually wrote alot of the aplications etc that Microsoft claim as their own. Those lists are not all encompasing. But rest assured they indeed show the real trend.

Anyone with an oppinion worth listening to knows the beginning. Back in the 1970s Microsoft formed with the advent of the Altair computer kit. In 1974 Paul Allen while on his way to visit Bill Gates stopped to browse some of the latest magazines. One of which featured the Altair 8080 computer kit. It was touted as the first computer kit to rival commercial models. He then told Bill. Bill within a few days called the maker of the ALTAIR, Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems and told him the straight faced lie that he and Paul had written a version of Basic for the Altair. Not only was this untrue, but neither of them had ever touched and altair or seen one in anything other than a magazine picture let alone develop software for it. When the head of MITS expressed an interest in their fictitious BASIC Gates spent the next several weeks with little sleep feverishly working on actually coding the version of Basic on a paper tape reader. While Allen looked for a way to emulate the Altair on their schools PDP-10. 8 weeks later they had a basic workable implementation of well BASIC and Paul Allen flew out to MITS to demo it. And the rest as they say is history. They sold the rights to the software to MITS and a year later Gates dropped out of college moved to a motell room in New Mexico with Paul Allen and founded Microsoft. That's right. Microsoft started with a lie. But that was only the beginning. A harbenger of things to come.

After the sale of Altair BASIC Microsoft hit a long dry spell where as a company there was not much goign on. It was purely by chance that at the time IBM was getting ready to release their PCs based on modular architechture. But they were lacking an operating system. Bill's mother a secratary for one of the higher ups at IBM over heard this and mentioned that her son was writing an "operating system". Or at least she thought he was. This piqued the interest of IBM and a meeting was arranged. The day of the meeting Paul Allen, Steve Balmer, and Bill Gates(sans morals and with poker face) sat in one of the conference rooms. Durring that session Gates went solo trying to market IBM the OS he was working on.(It is important to note at this point that he was not working on nor had ever worked on writing an OS ever.) After sitting through the confidence man's spin session the IBM execs bought in and gave $50,000 as a first investment in Microsoft Vaporware 2.0(Altair BASIC being Vaporware 1.0). Allen and Balmer managed while being gobsmacked to remain silent during Bill's bovine excrement slinging session. But once out of earshot on the steps of IBM Paul Allen had to broach the question. "What are you nuts? We don't have an operating system!" Ok not so much a question but you get the gist. To which Bill Gates the man with the plan replied "We'll think of something.". Thank goodnes in the end Paul Allen did think of something and pulled Bill's bacon out of the fire once again. Through Allen; Gates and friends were able to track down a local programmer they had heard of who wrote a Disk Operating System for the TRS-80. After a short time negotiating with Bill the man quickly sold the rights to the software for $50,000USD.(how convinient) "He was like who in their right mind PAYS for software? Corporations and government agencies contract or hire people to write software for them. But no one actually BUYS software. Everyone else simply writes software and gives it away."(that's right. Opensource and freeware predate the pay software model) Little did he know that this was all about to change. With the source code in hand Gates and crew began the fevered task of quickly writing *kof*porting*kof* DOS. Viola! MS DOS is born! Bill being the evil genius that he is got IBM to agree to som pretty outlandish terms over DOS. Instead of selling them the rights to DOS outright they got them to agree to let Microsoft retain ownership and "license" it to them. Something basically unheard of at the time. Over the years that followed Microsoft established itself in the market with the help and funding of IBM. Once Microsoft came into their own they began to languish and stall. IBM demanded upgrades and fixes to MS DOS in return for the funding they were giving Microsoft. And Microsoft was more than happy to take the funding and give them little or nothing in return.

During this time it is important to note the advent of the GUI on the PC. After a visit to palo-alto to see a demo of XEROX-PARC Jobs and the Woz walked away with XEROX's concent to use many innovations developed for PARC on their computer systems. This included the concept of aplication windows(which Microsoft is trying to claim as their own), drag and drop, and what would drag and drop be without the mouse. Microsoft fealing on top of the world decided to be more brash than ever. Rather than just lying this time Microsoft felt up for IP theft. Rather than getting permission from Xerox to use their inventions and not wanting to get left behind by anyone Microsoft created their first GUI in violation of all sorts of IP and copyright laws. They lucked out though. Xerox did not think much on a corporate level of the acomplishments of XEROX-PARC and had given the rights to Apple Computer to use them for free. So they saw little use in persuing Microsoft over their agredious violation. Viola MS Windows is born!

At some point IBM got fed up with sinking money into Microsoft and getting little or no return. So a joint venture was started with Microsft under the supervision of IBM. It was to be the sucessor to MS DOS/Windows. Namely OS/2. Microsoft played along with IBM through the first internal revisions of OS/2. But when IBM revealed their ambition to sell OS/2 to the consumer market they envoked the unholy wrath of Microsoft. Microsoft had grown so powerfull and dominant in that time with the help of IBM that they turned their earlier arangemnts with IBM and played them against IBM.(It was important to note at this time that the market had since been flooded with IBM compatable PCs and that via actual competition IBM no longer controlled the market.) Microsoft turned and bit the hand that fed it threatening to sustantially increase IBMs licensing fees for MS Products in relation to other PC OEM to make the move unprofitable.(See DOJ vs. Microsoft) IBM sadly submitted allowing the Archaeic MS Windows to stay in controll of the market and deprive people of a wholly superior operating system and an actual choice. IBM was never known for taking chances. It was simply by the grace of God they risked developing a micro computer in the first place. They are after all gods of the mainframe/macro computer. Unable to sell OS/2 to the masses and not being able to sell it to anyone else without Microsoft's concent due to their involvement. IBM basically gave Microsoft the complete rights to the small bits of OS/2 they had helped with and sold them cheap the rights to the rest of OS/2 so it would not be a total waste.(IBM "does" still sell and use OS/2. They use it mainly internally and sell it to a few large corporations.) Viola! Windows Lanmanager/NT was born.

At that time Microsoft was not using the excuse of bundling aplications to run their competitiors out of buisness. Their competitors were already there and had large customer bases so that would not have worked anyway. Instead Microsoft began releasing patches and updates and specifically changing core components of Windows un-announced in order to "break" their competitiors products.(This was part of the basis for the DOJ anti-trust case against Microsoft. And Microsoft was found guilty so don't deny it) Once Microsoft ruined the reputation of their biggest competitors they began premptive actions via aplication bundling to keep future competitiors out of their markets.( See The Browser Wars) Along with more purposefull breaking of compatability with compeeting programs. Not only did Microsoft use bundling to begin replacing Netscape with Internet Explorer. They even royally screwed the company they got Intenet Explorer from in the first place. They purposefully entered into a contract in bad faith to pay royalties for each version of Spyglass softwares version of Mosaic rebadged Internet Explorer they sold. After less than a year or so selling IE in select stores to people with current MS Windows versions it was announced that Microsoft would with the new version of MS Windows be bundling Internet Explorer and that it would no longer be sold separatly. Effectively wiggling out of their responsibility to pay Spyglass software millions in licensing etc.

Everyone else knows the rest for the most part. Netshow appeared and evolved into Windows Media; which was bundled to kill off Real Media and Apple Quicktime. Microsoft used their controll to extort a free version of Norton Defrag to be bundled with all later Windows OS which has since become known as Windows Defrag or the defrag tool in general. Basically killing off that market for Norton, Symantec and many others in the long run. There are only a few such non Microsoft software any more. And most of those are only sold to large corporations and not home users. Microsoft also extorted citrix out of the use of a basic version of their metaframe program hear after known as MS Windows Terminal Services and most recently evolved into the Windows XP remote desktop feature. Basically killing off the market for Citrix with alot of businesses and shutting them out of ever entering the consumer market. And with MS Windows XP Microsoft introduced their own basic CD burning component which is to be greatly improved and bundled with the next version of MS Windows effectively killing off the market for companies like Ahead and Roxio. Microsoft did not create Word. They did not create Excel. They did not create Power Point. They did not create Front Page. They did not create Visio. They did not create Publisher. They didn't create their own popular flight simulator software. And they did not create much much more. Not only did they not create most of the software they sell. In the 1990s It was popular for them to announce that they were going to be releasing new aplications in new and virgining technology fields. Which would often bring those fields to an immediate halt as they waited to see what Microsoft would release. Which often turned out to be nothing. This effectively stifled innovation in computer technology for much of the 1990s and keps lots of markets open for future exploration by MS. As a result things like palmtop computing were in part delayed for almost a decade.

As a company Microsoft could not innovate their way out of a wet paper sack. And the one big innovation they are responsible for is the pay software model. Microsoft has wronged so many people and they are justified in their anger. Sure the government failed to stop this earlier. But ultimatly there is only Microsoft to blame. So don't ever try to pass off the FUD that someone other than Microsoft is responsible for their current state. It was Microsoft's decision to play things as they did. Earlier govenrment intervention likely would not have swayed them in this course.(Especially considdering that the DOJ vs. Microsoft case made no difference here.) Back in the 90's Microsoft was only abusing geeks and nerds. Because they were the only ones using computers at home at the time. And as usual the geeks and nerds being meek and often submissive were ignored by society and the government. It is only since the Internet boom that PCs have infiltrated to the majority of homes of average non-geeks/nerds. And is the reason why only now even though it is largely to late action as innefectual as it is, is taking place. Saying it's not Microsoft's fault is alot like saying it was not your fault you ran over that innocent padestrian. It's just not so. So drop this "It's not Microsoft's fault." act.

[Neo Neko]

Wow that went longer than I intended. I think paragraphs are in order for even such a short dissertation. *editing in a propper word processing software* OpenOffice ofcourse. :D

[Mug Funky]

@ neo neko:

after reading that spiel i got all guilty and downloaded and installed mozilla :)

[Elephant]

Thanks Neo Neko!

I heard that mozilla was better... Maybe I'll give it a try. Do you think it will work on window XP? MS might have something in one of their updates that will mess my computer up! ;)

I was a Mac user until MS Flight Simulator. VER. 5 didn't come out for the Mac (and never has to the best of my knowledge). That was in the early 90's I believe. I wonder how many other computer users made the switch because of that. Come to think of it, makes me want to get rid of MS office and my Pocket PC too!

Sure do wish that there was an alternative to MS. And now, they're trying to shut down Linux. Microsoft is bankrolling SCO's play.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14556

It would be nice if there was an open source movement that could compete! I would love to see MS go down right along with the RIAA and the bunch!

[bond]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
At this time Microsoft was not using the excuse of bundling aplications to run their competitiors out of buisness. Their competitors were already there and had large customer bases so that would not have worked anyway.
Instead Microsoft began releasing patches and updates and specifically changing core components of Windows un-announced in order to "break" their competitiors products.(This was part of the basis for the DOJ anti-trust case against Microsoft. And Microsoft was found guilty so don't deny it)

Once Microsoft ruined the reputation of their biggest competitors they began premptive actions via aplication bundling to keep future competitiors out of their markets.(Browser Wars) Along with more purposefull breaking of compatability with compeeting programs.
Not only did Microsoft use bundling to begin replacing Netscape with Internet Explorer ... After less than a year or so selling IE in select stores to people with current MS Windows versions it was announced that Microsoft would with the new version of MS Windows be bundling Internet Explorer and that it would no longer be sold separatly. ...
Windows Media; which was bundled to kill off Real Media and Apple Quicktime.
Microsoft used their controll to extort a free version of Norton Defrag to be bundled with all later Windows OS which has since become known as Windows Defrag or the defrag tool in general. Basically killing off that market for Norton, Symantec and many others in the long run. ...
And with MS Windows XP Microsoft introduced their own basic CD burning component which is to be greatly improved and bundled with the next version of MS Windows effectively killing off the market for companies like Ahead and Roxio.some of the very good points in your post :)


i think what makes the windows media player a special case relatively to the mentioned other cases (browsers, etc...) is that it doesnt only affect one products market, but very strongly a whole other very important markets too:
in fact the upcoming digital multimedia business will be THE market of the future, and m$ has very much interests that these market will depend on them:
music stores: wma9
video: wmv9 in hd-dvd

and in fact to prevent this was one of the reasons for the european commission to act like they did:
... reduces the incentives of music, film and other media companies ... and content providers to develop their offerings to competing media ...
Available data already show already a clear trend in favour of Windows Media technology ...
This would allow Microsoft to control related markets in the digital media sector, such as encoding technology, software for broadcasting of music over the Internet and digital rights management, etc ...

[Mug Funky]

i'd rather go without music completely if all i had to choose from was WMA9 or nothing.

i'd learn the fekking piano...

[mf]

@Neo Neko
Beautiful, such a long post without paragraphs. *pinks away a tear* Posts like those call for a "justify" post style, to make it even prettier.

[Neo Neko]

Well oddly enough for all the dammage that Microsoft has done they have indirectly done alot of good as well. Without Microsoft opensource as we know it today would not exist. Microsoft has by their own actions spawned the competitor they can't destroy; and who will in the long run quite possibly keep them in check in the future. Microsoft is the inspiration and drive behind opensource. Without Microsoft many of the people who contribute to opensource would likely be gainfully employed at one of thousands of small software companies with no interest in doing this sort of thing in their spare time. Lets face it. Good will will only get you so far. Were it not for the teeming masses of angry nerds and geeks with an axe to grind against Microsoft opensource would have likely gotten nowhere.

Also as great as Apple and the Mac are it was IBM's PC architecture and Microsoft's Windows that brought computers to the general public enmasse. And also gave us the high power low cost PCs and hardware we have today. That is something that Apple and the Mac would not likely have ever been able to do. But that should not excuse Microsoft from their conduct. As is often popular to say. The ends don't justify the means. Even without Microsoft the prolifferation of comuters and related technologies to the public at large would have happened anyway. All Microsoft did was speed the adoption.

In the end I did not post to make anyone feel guilty enough to run opensource or non-microsoft products. Those are things people should be evaluating any time they make a software decision in the first place. You should not need guilt. In all honesty there are times and situations where Microsoft software is not only functional but even apropriate. I don't have a grudge with people running MS Windows or other MS software. I run one copy myself. I play the rare game or two on it and do alot of my mutimedia tasks on it till *NIX gets fully up to speed for that. Which is coming together at a decent pace as we speak. The problem is that not all of those in Microsoft's 90+% market share really need Microsoft's products. You don't need Microsoft Windows or Internet Explorer to browse the internet. You don't need outlook/outlook express to get your email. You don't need Windows Media to play music or videos. And you don't need MS Office to do office tasks. There are viable alternatives to MS software in every one of these categories. But Microsoft makes it basically impossible to sell such products. You can't go to your local Best Buy or most consumer electronics stores to find Apple computers. In fact you are hard pressed to go to any consumer electronics or computer store and find any computers not using INTEL x86 or compatable CPUs or computers sold without MS Windows. And that is largely due to Microsoft. Though we as the general public and the government do bear some responsibility for standing idly by and letting this come to pass.

This 500 million fine is nothing. Microsoft makes that much in just under a week. If anything there need to be more fines with sanctions and restrictions firmly imposed upon them. And they need to be long term. I honestly think that the best answer is to break Microsoft in two. Separate the OS from the aplications. If we did that and ensured they were not collaborating behind the sceens it would radically change the situation. A filing Microsoft made back in 2002 to the US SEC showed that of 6+ divisions of Microsoft at the time only two actually made any money. That is not such a big deal untill you take into account the fact that all the divisions that did not make money did not break even either. They all lost more money than what was invested in them. That alone should sound alarm bells. Whats worse is that these divisions are not small Microsoft side projects. These are groups like the Internet Explorer group, Amir's Windows Media group, and the Xbox group. These are big divisions and incurring big losses. Enough to put the average corporation out of business in a snap. Microsoft is using their controll in just two markets to bankroll their way in controll of easily twice as many more markets. No company no matter how good they are or how good their product is stands a decent chance of survival in that situation.

As computer users this is our history. We all need to learn it or be doomed to repeat it. With as ubiquitous as the PC has become today these are the kinds of things that need to be taught in middle and highschool history classes. They are becoming increasingly more relivent than what is currently being taught in many of them.

Is Microsoft as a corporation a largely immoral company? Yes. But that is not a crime. If we arrested people in business for being immoral there would not be many businesses around. But Microsoft has done many things that go beyond being just immoral to being illegal. And yet they have the unmitigated guall to complain when people do the same to them. When the only people that have anything good to say about you are your bankers and investers you need to re-evaluate your image a bit. In fact what had gotten my ire up recently was one of the talking heads on Fox News. It drove home the point that the general business market as a whole are largely oblivious to the truth. As the reader so eloquently put it "The fine is in response to Microsoft's bundling of compatable software with their operating system."! Compatable? Compatable! Don't other people write compatable software? Why then is it not bundled? And who in their right mind would bundle incompatable software?! It's days like that which make it feel like an uphill battle.

[avih]

Neo Neko, :) can we put your posts into a hall or fame or something? (just re-paragraph the 1st one).

2X:goodpost:

[easybeat]

Neo, even though you were venting you spleen at me that was one hell of a post.I'll just take the criticism on the chin and bow out now if you don't mind.(I read your post and the links)
Guess there's a bad guy in every argument and this time it's me, life would be pretty boring though if we all shared they same opinions.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by easybeat
Neo, even though you were venting you spleen at me that was one hell of a post.I'll just take the criticism on the chin and bow out now if you don't mind.(I read your post and the links)
Guess there's a bad guy in every argument and this time it's me, life would be pretty boring though if we all shared they same opinions.

Who said you are the bad guy? Not me. Just uneducated. And that is nothing to serious at all. Most of us are here after all to learn. Albeit mostly video related information. But with Microsoft's courting with media corporations via their media technologies and DRM this then becomes relivent. To be honest with you I was once like you in your opinion. But I quite possibly have a leg up on you with nearly 20 years of computer experience having a computer in one form or another since before the time I was 10. While most people are just now getting into this boat I have been in it and living it for most of my life. This sort of thing is often the unspoken history of things which very few people are exposed to. That is why I say that with the use of computers by school children today that this needs to be taught in the history classes. Joe user just does not understand what this is all about. When they see Microsoft they just see a sucessful business and someone they would like to immitate. What they don't see is the history and the fact that Microsoft will not allow immitators let alone competitors. What I posted was not specifically aimed at you. But is more for the eddification of all those who were previously unexposed. Which does include you. But not just you. ;)

If I piqued your interest with any of this I am here to tell you that this only scratches the surface and only serves as a rough outline of PC history. It goes so much deeper. And in directions you might not have guessed. On that subject what about the relationship between SCO and Microsoft? Everyone now knows that Microsoft is helping to fund SCO's so called assault against Linux. Though SCO has never gone after Linux, rather companies who are or have migrated to it from SCO systems. The assault on Linux thing is just a smoke screen to slow the adoption of Linux and boost Microsoft's shares. To whit Microsoft's investment has seen some small success. But would it intrest anyone to know that this is not the first time Microsoft and SCO have worked together? SCO actually hired Microsoft in the late 1970's to write a Unix like OS for SCO. MS Xenix anyone? Xenix faded away in the early 1980s. But I am quite sure portions live on as SCO Unixware. SCO Unixware being the product in question that those accused were migrating to Linux from. :D Deeper and deeper. :devil:

[easybeat]

No problems Neo, I guess you like Microsoft as much as I like the European Parliament. Check out this to see the sort of double dealing they do.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3556021.stm
Here's where Microsoft's $500million is headed.

[Neo Neko]

Yeah I have real questions as to what they are going to be doing with it as well. I am still for fining and sanctions agains Microsoft. Even if they don't necessarily do the right thing with the money in the end. If I sit around wating for an action that is 100% agreeable I will die on my ass. Not something anyone really wants to do. Quite frankly I not only have issues with Microsoft but with the RIAA, MPAA, OPEC, major auto manufacturers, politicians in general, special interest groups, and even the UN. To be otherwise would be hypocritical.

[easybeat]

As I've said on another forum elsewhere we are heading towards a "Rollerball" like future where big corporations run the world.

[Elephant]

Originally posted by easybeat
As I've said on another forum elsewhere we are heading towards a "Rollerball" like future where big corporations run the world.

I think we are already there... but it will get worse.

[Neo Neko]

Yeah without Rebeca that movie would have been just plain weak. :p And it is scarry in it's own right. Not as much as Orwell's depiction of the future that is coming to pass. But still.

[sysKin]

Heh, look at this: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994818

According to this article, MS defends itself and says that removing WMP will hurt users, because MS already has a monopoly in media players and many websites will not work without their WMP.

How exactly such claim is going to help them - I don't know.

Perhaps EU should let them prove this point and then double the fine, as they will have admitted (and documented) exactly the thing that is illegal - using one monopoly to create another.

[bond]

Originally posted by sysKin
According to this article, MS defends itself and says that removing WMP will hurt users, because MS already has a monopoly in media players and many websites will not work without their WMP.haha, of course they will not work, like websites offering .mov files will also not work without quicktime :rolleyes:
man, this windows media bias caused by wmp was one of the reasons, why m$ has to remove its player from windows by default

seems that m$ is trying hard to save at least a little bit of the reputation they lost now, cause such a dumb argumentation will surely not help them in front of the court, but maybe in some user's mind...
or said the other way round: they seem not to have better arguments against the eu's decision :D

[Sirber]

The programs may not use WMP's graphical interface, but they rely on its application program interfaces (APIs), isolated snippets of code that perform functions such as rewind, forward or graphics rendering.

Without these APIs, software developers will have to write in these functions themselves, says Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology in Washington DC, who is strongly opposed to the EU ruling. "As a software provider you will have complete unpredictability about what you will find on a computer."Do quicktime or realplayer uses APIs or a "browser plugin"?

[DaveId]

people do indeed have strong opinions regarding microsoft... before i get into anything, i gotta make one point..
if you think there is something wrong with microsoft as a company, tell me one thing that you do that separates you from the rest of the consumers in the world... and for every thing that you do differently from the average consumer, prehaps we can find one thing that microsoft does differently from the average company.. i doubt highly that most people that visit these forums, or use computers daily, know much about living a non-consumptual life.. as long as we are consumers, we need suppliers.. plain and simple, microsoft is a good provider, they sell us something that we have come to accept needing, and we buy it... whose fault is it that we buy it??????
now then....
i do not agree with the opinion that microsofts bundling of a media player (that just happens to playback their formats) is any different than windows being shipped with an mp3 decoder, internet explorer, or outlook express... and to anyone that thinks the XP-SP1 'Set Programs Access and Defaults" options that disable these built in programs actually REMOVES the programs, try it.... and look in your program files folder, they are not gone, just removed from your start menu...
all i know is, if i DE-select windows media player on installation, or from the add-remove programs, file associations are to MY default player (zoom), wmp 6.4 does not even exist on the computer (not even in the program files/windows media player folder)...
i use mozilla firefox as a web browser, thunderbird as an email client, winamp for music, zoomplayer for video, and microsoft for windows and office.....
i definately do not support companies like microsoft, so i dont buy from them.. and don't use their programs.. there is always an alternative..
i do also know that some x-windows servers on *nix machines come with media players installed, such as xmms, or mplayer... is it just that microsoft also developed compression codecs that their player could play back but by default did not play in other programs? what if realmedia put out an operating system bundled with realplayer? would we say, take out your player from your operating system? or put windows media player in as well?
i hope not....
dave
but maybe i am totally wrong

[communist]

Originally posted by DaveId
they sell us something that we have come to accept needing

From a M$ EULA
The Software is licensed, not sold.

Originally posted by DaveId
microsoft is a good provider

No ;)

Originally posted by DaveId
if i DE-select windows media player on installation, or from the add-remove programs, file associations are to MY default player (zoom), wmp 6.4 does not even exist on the computer (not even in the program files/windows media player folder)...

Hmm?! Try Start -> Run -> mplayer2 [ENTER]

Originally posted by DaveId
i do also know that some x-windows servers on *nix machines come with media players installed, such as xmms, or mplayer...
Where you can easily remove it without having to fear of tearing the OS apart.
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: ;)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by DaveId
people do indeed have strong opinions regarding microsoft... before i get into anything, i gotta make one point..
if you think there is something wrong with microsoft as a company, tell me one thing that you do that separates you from the rest of the consumers in the world...

Education and two decades of first hand Microsoft consumer experience


Originally posted by DaveId
and for every thing that you do differently from the average consumer, prehaps we can find one thing that microsoft does differently from the average company..

You don't have to look that deep to figure out what Microsoft is doing differently. Microsoft does what most other companies can only dream about. Microsoft single handedly invented the "pay" software market/economy. Before that all software was basically free and open source. Having got in on the ground level Microsoft has put themselves in a place of control over the entire PC consumer market. Dictating to OEMs how they can sell or package their own products. Purposefully breaking competitors software. Basically throwing their weight around to muscle in everywhere else. It's all laid out in black and white in the failed DOJ anti-trust hearings. They were found guilty of things that would have gotten any other company dismantled. Yet they were not.

Originally posted by DaveId
i doubt highly that most people that visit these forums, or use computers daily, know much about living a non-consumptual life.. as long as we are consumers, we need suppliers.. plain and simple, microsoft is a good provider,

Hardly. They misrepresent the produts they sell. Often selling us products that anyone else would barely considder "beta" quality as final tested products. Further they lock us into their products trying to reduce our choices. By doing things like adopting and breaking openstandards what they call "embracing and extending" they do this.

Originally posted by DaveId
they sell us something that we have come to accept needing, and we buy it... whose fault is it that we buy it??????

It is not any one persons fault. Ultimatly consumers are to blame for setling on paying more for less. But mostly blame can be laid on Microsoft for their tactics and business practices. In the relative absence of choice that Microsoft has created Microsoft is often the only choice. And when consumers have to make a choice that generally means Microsoft. Some of us can build our own Microsoft free systems. But the average PC shopper is hard pressed to find non-Microsoft based systems for sale in their area. Very few places sell many Mac systems let alone carry Mac at all. And even fewer carry Linux systems. So ultimatly Microsoft is the result of no choice at all.

Originally posted by DaveId
i do not agree with the opinion that microsofts bundling of a media player (that just happens to playback their formats) is any different than windows being shipped with an mp3 decoder, internet explorer, or outlook express...

I don't remember anyone making that oppinion. It's all a problem. And Microsoft uses them all to discourage competition. The Media Player issue is just more central to the subject of the forum.

Originally posted by DaveId
and to anyone that thinks the XP-SP1 'Set Programs Access and Defaults" options that disable these built in programs actually REMOVES the programs, try it.... and look in your program files folder, they are not gone, just removed from your start menu...
all i know is, if i DE-select windows media player on installation, or from the add-remove programs, file associations are to MY default player (zoom), wmp 6.4 does not even exist on the computer (not even in the program files/windows media player folder)...

Wrong it is still there. As has been said before Mplayer2.exe will still be there and will still handle all media untill you install and associate them with something else. And when it comes down to it WMP hardly plays media anyway. It is just a directshow interface. And that Microsoft will not allow you to remove. Thank god for Windows Lite. It does what Microsoft says you can't. To bad you have to pay yet more again just so you can get even less.

Originally posted by DaveId
i use mozilla firefox as a web browser, thunderbird as an email client, winamp for music, zoomplayer for video, and microsoft for windows and office.....
i definately do not support companies like microsoft, so i dont buy from them.. and don't use their programs.. there is always an alternative..

You are being slightly hypocritical there. Why no OpenOffice.org and or Linux/BSD/BeOS/QNX?

Originally posted by DaveId
i do also know that some x-windows servers on *nix machines come with media players installed, such as xmms, or mplayer...

There is really only one X-window server software as far as that's concerned. Ok it is kinda two now. I took the X.org plunge monday. But it is still largely the same thing. And neither the Xfree or X.org groups are responsible for any media player software or advocate any particular media software. So actually what you state is a prime example of what Microsoft is dooing wrong and what *NIX distros are dooing right. With *NIX you really have a choice. Where with Microsoft you really don't. You get directshow whether you want it or not.

Originally posted by DaveId
is it just that microsoft also developed compression codecs that their player could play back but by default did not play in other programs?

No but it should be easy to see how that only exacerbates the situation.

Originally posted by DaveId
what if realmedia put out an operating system bundled with realplayer? would we say, take out your player from your operating system? or put windows media player in as well?

No. But that would not be a double standard. In an ideal situation everyone should be free to bundle what they want. But this is hardly an ideal situation. Microsoft can use their situation to push their products to the detrement of everyone. And that is the difference. Demanding that Microsoft allow choice is basically just trying to re-introduce copetition back into the equation. It is about the control Microsoft can exert. If they did not have the control they have then there would be no issue with them bundling what they do. But just by bundling something Microsoft can make it the defacto standard product even if it is the worst product in that market! And Microsoft has a history of shoddy products.

**This message was posted under Mozilla 1.6 under KDE 3.2.2 under X.org under Gentoo Linux using Linx kernel 2.6.4**

[sysKin]

Originally posted by DaveId
[...]they sell us something that we have come to accept needing, and we buy it... whose fault is it that we buy it??????
now then....
i do not agree with the opinion that microsofts bundling of a media player (that just happens to playback their formats) is any different than windows being shipped with an mp3 decoder, internet explorer, or outlook express...
There is a main difference, which you missed. It is not illegal or problematic to bundle one software with another, that is not the problem here.
It is, however, illegal to use a monopoly in a way that helps to create another monopoly. This is one of the main points of anti-trust laws.

WMP was not a problem when it just played AVIs or mp3s - there are another programs that do that, MS has no benefit when you use them to play MP3s or not. It was a real utility, nothing more.

Now, however, WindowsMedia is a market. MS sells the technology, takes money for DRMing it, takes money from ZoomPlayer (pro) for the right to play the files. It is a new market, with real money and competitors which are easy to identify - Real and Apple.

It can be easly seen that by budling WMP with windows, MS is using the monopoly in one market to create an advantage in a completely different market. About one hundret years ago, governments decided that it is against the public interest (and even economical interest) and banned it. Simple.

Radek

[sysKin]

Hi, me again ;)
Originally posted by DaveId
whose fault is it that we buy it??????
Indeed, MS is accused of monopolistic behaviour much more than other monopolies. However, there is a reason.

There is a thing in economy called a Network Effect. This means that if someone else buys a product, it somehow affects your choice about a similar product.

Quite often there is no network effect. Just because your neighbours, friends and co-workers like/buy a butter of a famous brand, it will not affect your choice of butter.

Sometimes the effect is negative. If everyone likes a new shopping centre, you might avoid it, because there is no parking space or you just don't like the crowd.

Quite often the positive effect isn't big, like with cars - sure, you will not buy a car from a small factory because you are afraid that replacement parts will not be available, but it is not *that* strong to create a monopoly by itself.
The positive effect usually also drives the prices up (because the demand goes up), which helps to keep everything under control.

It is obvious that a market of operating systems, office applications, or instant messengers has a very very strong positive network effect. If all your employees bought, or are train in, MS word, it is almost always cheaper to buy MS word than install free OOo. If everyone on this planet has windows installed, software companies will write new programs for windows, which means that their clients will buy windows. If your friends have MSN, you will not install ICQ.
If 90% of users can play WMV files, you will encode your online stuff in WMV, and some of the remaining 10% will install new software to play WMV.

At the same time, costs don't rise because of high demand - MS can easly sell as many licenses as they want.

This is the only reason why competitors can't compete with MS. The network effect is so strong that they have no way of doing anything about it.

[Rash]

Err, OK I don't know if I should post this. Well, I don't know if you guys are familiar with the Home Theater Forum (http://www.hometheaterforum.com). It is basically a huge forum for discussion about Home Theaters design, equipment and softwares (DVDs, LDs, etc). It is known that some industry members visit that forum as well.

What I wanted to say is that the people in that forum supports the WM9 codec for the next generation HD discs (HD-DVD and BD). They truly believe that it is the best thing there is. Once I tried to say WM9 doesn't beat usual MPEG4 (based on Doom9's comparisons) but they didn't believe me. As far as I can tell, everybody is hypnotized with the www.wmvhd.com demos.

Well, I'm not really against the WM9 codec. Actually, I think it is quite nice (look at those demos). What I am afraid of is Microsoft politics to "rule" the entertainment industry.

[KR]

Hi all,

Just a small note, because I saw users saying it's okay for MS to bundle all their software. Maybe it is, but it's certainly not okay for them to restrict access to third-party software.

I had made a "Lecteur Multimédia" (which means a media player) when I had Win98. It was first for my own use, but I then distributed it to many people. My program was fast, disn't use much ressources, would play wav,avi,mpg,mid,mod,s3m,xm,it, and others. It was simple to use. It was... perfect (for my needs).

Everytime I would update Windows Media Player, to see if I could benefit from some of it's "new" features, it would DELETE all shortcuts in the Desktop and Start Menu linking to my program, and mess up the file associations.

Now that I'm using WinXP, my program no longer works. In fact, 12 of my programs (made for MS-DOS and Win98) no longer work. Win98 compatibility mode is a joke, and a bad one.

If anyone here knows a bit of reverse engineering, have you ever taken a look at Windows code ? Personnally I think that names of sections of code like "USER!BOZOSLIVEHERE" are not very descriptive.

With every version of Windows, Microsoft distances the user from the computer. They call that "user friendliness". Simple things like changing the boot logo become more difficult. In Win98 it was a bitmap file one had to edit. Now it's an exe file from which you have to change the paletted image. But, this exe-file is dependant on the service pack that is installed. So you install this new service pack which corrects (cought) *adds* (cought) bugs, and you have to remake your logo. Autoexec.bat isn't executed anymore, bu then, even if it would, the CHOICE command doesn't exist anymore.

Registry problems, browser security problems, blue screen, etc. : User friendly.


Remember: Bugs come in through open Windows.