| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
RealNetworks Sues Microsoft, Charging Monopoly of Digital Media | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: CRN | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
RealNetworks filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft on Thursday, alleging that its competitor has illegally monopolized the growing field of digital media by requiring every Windows user to take Microsoft's media player, whether they want it or not. RealNetworks alleged that the software giant has violated state and federal antitrust laws, exploiting its monopoly to restrict competition. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:12:56 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 12/18/2003 9:35:06 PM |
| I think Real needs to go back and re-examine the issues brought up in the antitrust case. This is no different than the issues surrounding the browser, and is already covered via "Set Program Access and Defaults" and the ability to hide all end-user access to applications. |
| #2 By 3465 (68.50.165.53) at 12/18/2003 10:02:58 PM |
| Wait, hold on....ahahahahahahahahahahahahsahahaahahahahahahahaha...ok, i'm back. |
| #3 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 12/19/2003 1:05:07 AM |
| Crap, I meant to hit "nullify", but I hit delete instead. Stu, please repost sans-profanity, thanks. |
| #4 By 15705 (24.175.137.164) at 12/19/2003 1:18:35 AM |
|
We don't have editing rights.
Here's stu's post (I figured it might get deleted :-) ): #4 By stubear (488 Posts) at 12/18/2003 11:08:33 PM This is copied from a post at /. I thought it too funny to not post here: TO: Real Networks SUBJECT: F You All I am holding myself back in the most intense way at the moment. I don't care if this is the wrong address to send this to. Your website is a labyrinth of misdirection in which finding the simple thing you want is nigh-impossible. This, after about 20 clicks, was the first email address I came to. If you, as the person receiving this letter, have a shred of humanity left, you will submit this to the proper people. And now, on to my letter. Where do you people get off? My task: download Realplayer in order to view some streaming content. A simple project, one would say. Well, first you have to wade through the aforementioned sea of misdirection, all of it aimed at extracting your visa number to buy the completely useless realplayer plus. I realize you people need to make some money, but save it for the server business - it's bad enough that back in the day, you were inferior to several other streaming technologies, but somehow, like scum in water, you rose to the top. Leave the users who are stuck with your products out of your sick little power games. All I want is Realplayer Basic, to play realmedia, and ONLY realmedia. I am not interested in realjukebox, realdownloadagent, or realbuttplug. I specified this when I was installing it. I also am not interested in having your inferior product play my mp3s, or any format other than your own. This was also specified when I installed. How difficult a concept is this? Anyone can grasp it. And I won't even get into the god-knows-how-many useless "subscribe to our spam service!" checkboxes I have to uncheck, including five which are HIDDEN AT THE BOTTOM OF A STACK OF UNCHECKED ONES. With each click, the bile rises higher in my throat. If I knew a satanist, I would have him summon demons to terrorize your offices. So then, I go to launch an mp3 out of Agent, and not only does your software launch even though I SPECIFICALLY TOLD IT NOT TO DO THAT, but it's not even Realplayer - it's Realjukebox which I also SPECIFICALLY TOLD IT NOT TO INSTALL. And here's the real point: if you're going to go ahead and do a fascist coup of my system's preferences and resources (getting your filthy little icons out of my system tray gets more difficult with each new version), why bother pretending that you are giving me a choice? Just go ahead and take it, save me the trouble of unchecking all those boxes and saying No 20 times. Just go ahead, play your little game, and let me get on with removing your annoying system resource wastes from my pristine desktop. In closing, I would just like to say that I view your company as the most evil force operating on the internet today, and while I would end this with "may God have mercy on your souls" for anyone else (including Bill Gates), for you, I only pray that the people behind your software's design are raped by syphilitic camels at some point. Burn in hell. This post was edited by JT on Friday, December 19, 2003 at 01:19. |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 12/19/2003 2:38:38 AM |
| OMG. Syphilitic camels. I'm literally crying right now... |
| #6 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 12/19/2003 6:27:03 AM |
|
As I stated on another site, WMP was in Windows before Real existed. It played A/V files but didn't stream. Quicktime has followed virtually the same path as WMP.
SPA&D is configurable by the user and the OEM. Most users acquire Windows by purchasing a new PC. The OEM upon their own volition, or through a contract with Real or another ISV, can remove access to WMP and make RealOne (or another player) the default. This serves the same purpose as actual code removal from the end-user's perspective. In this case, the end-user wouldn't be aware of WMP's accessibility unless they knew how to go to Add/Remove Programs, and enable WMP. These issues are the same as those brought by Sun, Netscape, et al concerning the browser, java, and other "middleware" including WMP. Real is just setting MS up for the blame once again as an excuse to investors for any hard times that may come, which are in reality directly attributable to Real's own actions. Much like other MS competitors have shot themselves in the foot, so now, once again, has Real, and they are looking for an out. They didn't kill MS in the US suit, they're trying in the EU case, and for extra measure, they ready their own case. Real has shipped bad code and blamed it on MS, only to have MS confirm it as a bug in their code. Real has turned their software into some of the most user unfriendly code you can run. The active stealing of file associations in their software (and others) is the reason for one of Longhorn's new features that lets the user manage what app can have what association (and news of this feature is probably another reason Real feels that they are an endangered species). Hiding of checked checkboxes and using other trickery to make app configuration a pain, and making it difficult to acquire the free version of their player are other reasons that Real has lost end-users. Yet, even with the loss of some end-users, they are still apparently doing well with their subscription services. The end-user isn't lazy. If something is required to do what they want to do the way they want to do it, they will buy it or download it. End-users have done this many times before. Why do people still acquire Quicktime or WinAmp or iTunes? If there is already equivalent functionality offered OOTB. Why are their so many dang Divx files on the net if WMP is readily available and WM Encoder is a free download or the end-user can use Windows Movie Maker to encode content to WMV? The notion that end-users are too lazy or stupid to find solutions when there is a need has never been supported in any of these cases. In fact, most of the time (if not all), the competition has been in a lead position, and sometimes, the only choice in the market. People had no problem finding them or using their product. Then MS comes in with a better offering and many start to switch. This has been repeated many times, the competitor's name just changes. In a lot of cases, it has taken time for MS to develop the right offering for them to start attracting customers. In no case has it happened overnight. Further linkage concerning this case: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/001162.html This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, December 19, 2003 at 06:28. |
| #7 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 12/19/2003 8:47:25 AM |
|
Sorry if this rambles a bit, I’m trying to figure the rights and wrongs of this. If anyone has any constructive comments please do so, this post is not meant to start a flame war.
I've got to admit to having mixed emotions on these anti-trust charges that MS seems to continually face from competitors and government entities. On the one hand Windows is Microsoft’s baby and they should be allowed to add functionality as they see fit. Other options to the Windows OS (and it's components) do exist and people do use them (to varying degrees). MS has done a remarkable job of capturing the lion’s share of many of the markets they have chosen to enter. Most of the markets in which they have assumed the lead position were due to superior product offerings and massive blunders by the competition. On the other hand, doesn't the addition of the programs ultimately hurt us, the end-users? By having a lock on the OS market (Unix, Linux and MacOS are barely contenders) and leveraging their control of said market (as well as the mistakes of their competition) MS have essentially taken control of the office suite, browser, and are working on the digital media player market. In some cases they have engaged in some underhanded methods to ensure that their products were used/sold (this in reference to the licensing agreements they forced many OEMs under) Assuming that MS is an evil monopoly (I’m not saying they are) the problem, as I see it, is that there doesn’t seem to be a reasonable solution to all of this. I’m not sure breaking up MS into separate companies is going to be the right thing to do for the consumers and the sanctions haven’t seemed to have had a lot of effect. Is the right solution to impose more sanctions, maybe discuss another breakup of the company? Are no actions against MS required? Would forcing MS to remove these components and apps (IE, WMP, etc) from Windows be a reasonable/viable solution? IS it something else not even listed here? |
| #8 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 12/19/2003 10:38:50 AM |
| #14 Asking this out of ignorance. How completely can one hide IE, WMP, MSN, etc from the user with SPA&D? Does this just remove the shortcuts to the program while leave the executable and whatnot intact? A better question would be, where can I find more information on SPA&D so that I may read up on it myself? |
| #9 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 12/19/2003 11:56:45 AM |
|
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/shellcc/platform/Shell/programmersguide/shell_adv/setprogramaccess.asp
Also: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f201200/201205a.htm Section III.H of the Consent Decree requires Microsoft to allow end users and OEMs to enable or remove access to all middleware products including web browsers, e-mail clients, and media players through a readily accessible, centralized mechanism. This mechanism must also allow end users and OEMs to specify a non-Microsoft middleware product as the default middleware product to be launched in place of the corresponding Microsoft middleware product. In order to comply with Section III.H, Microsoft created the "Set Program Access & Defaults" ("SPA&D") utility and included it in Windows XP Service Pack 1 and Windows 2000 Service Pack 3. The Department has reviewed and continues to review Microsoft's compliance with Section III.H of the Consent Decree. In response to the Department's concerns, Microsoft has made three substantial changes to its implementation of the SPA&D tool. First, for Windows XP, the SPA&D icon will be placed permanently on the main Start menu. Originally, the SPA&D icon appeared within the "All Programs" submenu of the Start menu, or in a section of the Start menu that varied with usage and was not permanent. Users can now download an update from Microsoft's website that updates the location of the SPA&D icon; this change will also be included in Windows XP Service Pack 2 when it is released. Second, Windows XP Service Pack 1 can now be downloaded with non-Microsoft web browsers; Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser is no longer required. Third, Microsoft has made Help files relating to the SPA&D tool available on its website. These Help files are also available in the Help search mechanism on an end user's computer when the user is connected to the Internet. Microsoft will also include this Help content in Windows XP Service Pack 2. *Note: IE never was required for SP download. This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, December 19, 2003 at 12:02. |
| #10 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/19/2003 3:30:48 PM |
|
"As I stated on another site, WMP was in Windows before Real existed. It played A/V files but didn't stream. Quicktime has followed virtually the same path as WMP."
What are you talking about? WMP didn't exist until 97/98. Before then it was NetShow (which was a purchased product). From 1996-1998, Microsoft licensed and included RealAudio, RealVideo, and RealPlayer for inclusion in the OS because it knew NetShow blew @ss. Real existed well before WMP did. The name of the company at the time was Progressive Networks, but the product naming and the codebase had already been established well before WMP ever existed. |
| #11 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/19/2003 4:52:19 PM |
|
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIE.mspx
1996: Internet Explorer 3.0 Designed for Windows 95, Internet Explorer 3.0 technology offered useful components that immediately appealed to users, including Internet Mail and News 1.0 and Windows Address Book. Later, Microsoft NetMeeting® and Windows Media Player were added. WMP was included with IE at least as far back as 1996. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/press/dmtimeline.aspx In 1991, Microsoft Corp. added the first digital audio and video capabilities to the Microsoft Windows operating system with Multimedia Extensions in Windows 3.0. From that simple beginning, Microsoft has continued to develop the core digital media capabilities of Windows, responding to customer demands for ever-more powerful, integrated and easy-to-use digital media features. So, media playing technology was in Windows from 1991 onward. Whether it had that name Windows Media Player seems really unimportant IMO. |
| #12 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/19/2003 4:56:29 PM |
|
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001819232_realnetime19.html
1983: Rob Glaser rises through Microsoft's ranks to oversee Microsoft Word and launch the company's multimedia business. February 1994: Glaser founds Progressive Networks to provide a distribution channel for political content. It quickly evolves into a distribution company for audio broadcasts online. OK, so RealNetworks (aka Progressive Networks) began a full three years after Microsoft had included a media player in Windows. So, no, Progressive/Real wasn't the first to the media player on Windows party. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/19/2003 5:54:06 PM |
|
Real doesn't get any loving from me because they keep trying to take over my desktop.
I have it on my machine, but I have it there with extreme resentment. Quicktime is also annoying, although not nearly as intrusive as Real. I just want to display the frigging content off a website, that's it! Just let me see the frigging video without trying to take over my desktop! And people claim Windows Media is bad, at least it does what I tell it to do. It doesn't give me daily messages and provide no means to unsubscribe from the darned things. I agree with F you Real! I want to send a letter to Glasser letting him know why I think his product sucks. I could never recommend buying the server side, because the consumer side is so intrusive. |
| #14 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/19/2003 7:06:37 PM |
|
Bob, I would differ with you on the specifics of that.
The media extensions you mention in 91 are hardly media formats, a media player, a media server... a complete media system. Media Player was a simple playback app... It had no specialized connection with the OS, Microsoft did not have its own formats and it only played aiff and wav files (hardly what we are talking about here: formats, downloading, streaming, and playing these formats, serving them.) There were zero Microsoft media formats back in 91. The lame Media Player (Microsoft is being very revisionist in calling it "Windows Media Player" in the IE timeline) didn't gain video support until 94 and then only limited mpeg support and other proprietary formats they licensed. NetShow was the closest thing to something akin to a modern media system, and Microsoft bought it. Of course, MS conveniently leaves this out of their timeline for media history. And even then it took them three years to integrate those purchased technologies into what is the first real "Windows Media Player" in 99. From 96 to 98 Microsoft licensed and included Real even though they had NetShow and Media Player. To claim that Microsoft had what Real had in 95/96 back in 91 is a pathetic joke. (Now let's sit back and see if the softies will boldy represent the true history of media on Windows or craptastically turn to MS's deluded and laughable revisionist history.) |
| #15 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/19/2003 8:36:20 PM |
|
Jerk, you're missing the point and making inappropriate remarks toward Microsoft's stated history and anyone who differs from your viewpoint. Let's remain civil, shall we?
I never claimed that Microsoft had a media platform in '91. They didn't even have a server OS, so how could the have a media server? This issue we were discussing was the player (e.g. the client) not a client/server platform. Simple playback app. Um, any media player is essentially a simple playback app. That's what it does, it plays stuff back. I never claimed that back in the day it supported streaming. I simply said that Microsoft has had a media player in Windows since before Real's/Progressive's founding. No matter how fledgling (did anyone have streaming technology in '91?), it was still a media player. It was still included by default. Who cares whether Microsoft had it's own media formats at the time. That's not the issue I was disucssing. The issues, quite simply, is that Windows has had a media player for more than a decade. Revisionism in IE history. I don't see any revisionism. In Windows 3.0 the app was called Media Player. In IE 3, it was renamed to Windows Media Player. What's the difference? That doesn't sound revisionist to me. It's no different than saying Real was founded in 1994 rather than calling it Prossive. No difference to me. Pathetic joke. I didn't say that Microsoft's media player was comparable to Real's. I simply said that Microsoft had a media player in Windows from before the time that Progressive/Real was founded. The fact is, Microsoft had a media player before Progressive/Real ever existed. True history. This softie didn't misrepresent anything. It is you, who are trying to spin this, for some reason unknown to me, out of honesty. I'm not attacking anyone or any product. I'm simply saying that Microsoft had a media player in Windows before Progressive/Real was founded. That's no revisionism. That's just reality. |
| #16 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/19/2003 8:53:19 PM |
| Bob, I haven't said anything uncivil and if you would read the complaint, the history that I have mentioned is the one which is relevant. My comment is in reply to Jagged, who seems to think that the media player from 91 is equivalent to what Real had developed by 96, and that predating negates any argument Real may have. He is completely delusional to think so. Real isn't and never would be concerned about a player that only played opn standards. Real is concerned about the modern WMP. Again, I could care less what you are discussing or about the inept argument being made by Jagged.... This is what the case is about. Any similarilty in name is completely irrelevant. It is certainly important to discuss specific functionality, where it came from, and it's significance. By you pointing out pathetic and uninformative timelines posted by Microsoft is important because it simply reinforces the erroneous and pathetic argument started by Jagged and has nothing to do with this case, even if that is what you want to discuss. |
| #17 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/19/2003 9:35:29 PM |
| I don't seem to see any comments from Jagged in this thread that have anything to do with WMP. |
| #18 By 37 (64.109.31.106) at 12/19/2003 10:58:59 PM |
| It appears Sodajerk has been tipping back a few too many. |
| #19 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/22/2003 1:21:44 PM |
| Jagged, enforcer... thet're all the same. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:12:56 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
