ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

EC's Microsoft ruling--a big mistake

Time: 09:00 EST/14:00 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim

COMMENTARY--Every time I move to Ireland, a ruling in Microsoft's interminable struggle with antitrust authorities is handed down. Given this remarkable coincidence, I've concluded that Microsoft's best chance to end its antitrust tribulations is to pay me to stop moving. I'm thinking a Greek island, though I WILL require a satellite broadband connection, which would be more internet bandwidth than I'm managing now, given that I can't get DSL OR Cable Broadband at an apartment which is practically at Dublin's epicenter. Random preamble aside, it shouldn't surprise anyone who has waded through my past wordy prognostications that I disagreed strongly with the decision issued recently by European competition authorities in Brussels.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 332
Last | Next

The time now is 3:19:13 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/30/2004 10:45:40 AM

This is an incredible article, very good points made.

#2 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 3/30/2004 7:41:19 PM

An article from none other than John Carroll himself. Suprise, suprise. This guy is a bigger Microsoft apologist that all the ones here combined!

"Requiring that Microsoft remove Media Player sets a horrifying precedent"

It only sets a "horrifying precedent" if your company has a monopoly/near-as-good-as-a-monopoly and it has continually illegally leveraged that market power to promote their other applications. Why is it so damn difficult for the microsoft apologists to understand that the ruling is based on Microsoft illegally abusing their market power? This doesn't apply to anyone else! There are special rules in place for when you are ruled a monopoly or near-monopoly as the case may be (for the pedantic Microsoft apologists).

"It is likely that MOST will end up choosing the version with Media Player included"

So stop your whinging then!

"Apart from that, however, it means that developers, both within Microsoft and without, will no longer be assured that a media player with certain performance characteristics and a particular set of reusability APIs is included on Windows"

This is a bogus issue which has been argued in the past and is a null point. If developers need certain API, then they WILL INCLUDE IT as part of their install - EXACTLY THE SAME WAY they do right now, e.g. MS Money comes with WMP on the CD, every DirectX game comes with the correct DirectX version required on the CD, etc etc etc. None of these developers are expecting the end user to have certain applications installed and certain versions of those applications installed. They are developing for a PC not a console!

"Granted, Media Player isn't "open" technology "
Correct, it's closed up proprietary Microsoft only technology so get off your high horse trying to comare it to TCP/IP or HTTP! Nearly every other standard taken aboard by Microsoft has been "embraced and extended", look at the "standards-compliant" (ha!) IE!

"As Kollar-Kotelly noted in her ruling"
A judge under the Bush US Administration's DOJ that in the end barely even slapped Microsoft on the wrists ... compared to the Clinton's DOJ that was wanting to break Microsoft up into pieces.

#3 By 21203 (208.252.96.195) at 3/30/2004 9:15:10 PM

Chris: What you're forgetting is that Media Player is part of Windows, and always has been. The fact that there is an -optional upgrade- to WMP doesn't negate that the "media player" component has always been a part of the "windows" product package far before Microsoft was ever a monopoly.

Therefore, the developers reliant upon a media API or a program to be installed to play media files is broken. The only real way to "remove" WMP is similar to how IE was "removed".

I bring this all up because unlike IE, WMP was not "bundled unfairly". Even IE was not bundled unfairly IMHO, but that's a whole separate debate... it was just handled very poorly. Media Player in my view is an extremely clear argument.

How it sets a horrifying precedent: When Linux becomes the Next Big OS, or OS2 has a revival, or whatever else, companies will suffer a legal precedent which will require included applications to always take a backseat to competitor products. In other words, this action gives competition the advantage over the lead (and ironically, I don't see how WMP has a "lead" -- it is simply a product on a monopoly OS). Monopoly law is supposed to create a level playing field. If you like Microsoft or hate them, you have to at least try to be fair.

"If developers need certain API, then they WILL INCLUDE IT as part of their install"

That's linux mentality. The only time a technology is included with an application is so that the application can make appropriate high-level API calls, not to create the existance of the API.

For example, I can install a game that requires DX7 (which I think is the version that comes with XP). If a game requires DX8 that is a revisional technical upgrade, and yes that gets included on the CD usually always. I have never seen an example of a technology that must be installed new unless it's obviously non-OS (like a SQL client engine).

The point is that windows is sold to everyone as a package of APIs. Windows Media is part of that API set. Microsoft has the right to update that API. But here's the deal breaker: You have the choice of not using the client interface, and Microsoft does not prevent the installation of any competitors product.

"Correct, it's closed up proprietary Microsoft only technology..."

So are an awful lot of the competitors products. Microsoft is actually trying to make WMA/V a standard just as much as MPEG4 or Quicktime is a "standard".

#4 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 3/30/2004 10:44:03 PM

#4 "Media Player is part of Windows, and always has been"

Media Player in Windows 3.x and Media Player in WinXP aren't exactly the same beast now are they.

"before Microsoft was ever a monopoly."

I'm glad you at least admit that they are in fact a Monopoly! And given that they are in fact a Monopoly, who has illegally abused their market power, they are, as a result, made to play under different rules to their competitors that do not have a Monopoly to abuse. These alternative rules to play by are set up to try and create a fairer market place that will in the end benefit consumers.

"When Linux becomes the Next Big OS, or OS2 has a revival, or whatever else, companies will suffer a legal precedent which will require included applications to always take a backseat to competitor products."

You do realise that there is a difference between bundling and tying. Microsoft has been doing the latter of the two. Most people don't have a huge issue with Microsoft including IE and WMP with their OS (bundling), what they DO have an issue with is Microsoft tying these applications into the OS so that you can no longer remove them because they are suddenly "core components"! Linux (since you brought it up) does not have a web browser or a media player as a core component, so this fear of a huge legal precedent doesn't apply to it, it only applies to Microsoft and anyone else abusing their Monopoly by tying applications!

"That's linux mentality"
No, that's developer mentality. Developers include everything required for their application/game/whatever to run. They do not make assumptions based on what you may or may not have installed on you system as that will at one stage or another bite them on the ass, so they include everything required. Microsoft is no different in this respect, they always bundle all the components to make Program A run.

Anyways, we'll see what happens in the courts. Hopefully all the punishments will stay otherwise an even worse moral precedent will be reiterated - you can get away with anything you want as long as you have money - see: Microsoft, OJ Simpson, George W Bush (the selected) etc.

#5 By 12071 (203.217.19.107) at 3/31/2004 2:57:58 AM

#6 "Microsoft is not a monopoly."
In the US they've been ruled as one. We'll see what the EU courts have to say on the matter.

#7 "In his deluded eyes, putting a media player in windows 10 years ago = murdering your wife."
I'm glad it caught your attention Parker =) But you seem to have it wrong. OJ Simpson DIDN'T murder his wife, remember. So let's not put words in my mouth or assume any link between Microsoft, OJ and Bush Jnr (apart from the ummm contributions that MS made to Bush Jnr of course) - my only point was that if you have enough money it's amazing how you can "bend" the law.

#8 "If you want another media player to use on your system, there are tons of them out there, there is nothing stopping you. The ruling by the EU attempting to order Microsoft to remove Windows Media Player is like telling Ford or GM that they can't use their own radios, or transmissions, or engines in their own cars."
Neither Ford nor GM control 95% (or thereabouts) of the car market, neither of them have been ruled a monopoly, neither of them have been found guilty by the US courts for abusing the monopoly that they do not have. If you're going to compare, make sure it's relevant!

But if we DO use your comparison (for amusement's sake) then removing the Ford car stereo would stop your automobile from working anymore. (i.e. WMP is a "core component" of Windows apparently!). But you and I both know that we can remove the car stereo, the windows, doors, engine, anything we like and we can replace it with anything we like! Do you understand why this is a completely irrelevant comparison now?

"This so called ruling is not based on any logic, but rather on what I suspect is some kind of personal vendetta by Mario Monti."
Now see, you disappointed me here. Where was the whole "oh my god, this is such an obvious anti-US sentiment" etc? =)

#6 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 3/31/2004 8:21:32 AM

Question. In the article Caroll states that he believes that the penalty of 497 million euros will be overturned. Does anyone think MS is going to fight the fine?

I�m asking because from what I have read the fine is relatively small (in comparison with their "war chest").

In the EU should Microsoft challenges the fine their payments are put on hold during the appeals process. Once that process is over and assuming they lose the appeal they are required to pay the original fine plus a retroactive 5.5% monthly interest rate.

Given the chance for the fine to increase by 27 million euros per month over the course of the appeals process, would this be a smart gamble for Microsoft? Or am I completely off target and misremembering things?

#7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/31/2004 4:41:09 PM

Chris_kabuki, you are rather irrational in a lot of your assertions. Interesting that you shout the phrase "...stop your whinging then!" when that is in fact what you are doing, if not moreso. Carroll's arguments have excellent supportive facts and ideas.

Re: precedent--don't confuse the subject. The scary precedent is that it is OK as a punitive action for a court to govern the actual design, implementation, and distribution of a product. I think Carroll makes very good points why no one should like this. While in this case it was related to an anti-trust concern, it does not necessarily follow that this type of remedy couldn't be applied elsewhere. Furthermore, it's just not even a great remedy, no matter on what side of the case you sit.

Re: bundling WMP, DirectX, etc. on CDs with applications--fine... if you get all your applications on CD. But a lot of applications are bought or downloaded online, and the last thing most people want to do (or can do) is gather up all these "missing" OS components just to make their software work. And a lot of it has to do with customer expectation--for example, if IE wasn't included, people would be quite upset that there was no browser on the machine. Sure, they could download a browser... or maybe not, since they likely don't know how to download one, as they certainly no longer can from the web. In the end, it's beneficial for consumers and developers just to package it in there. They can install their own alternatives if they like, but at least those core components are there and both users and developers can count on them. You mention Linux not including these things as core components, but it's not a popular consumer OS either, is it?

Re: proprietary vs. open technology--oh, c'mon. And you tell others to "stop whinging." This argument is so old. People depend on both proprietary and open technologies everyday. There's nothing WRONG with proprietary technology.

Re: Kollar-Kotelly ruling--um, it wasn't the JUDGE that settled with Microsoft. If you're unhappy with the SETTLEMENT, blame the plaintiff, not the judicial system.

#8 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 3/31/2004 8:08:31 PM

This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use.

#9 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 3/31/2004 8:26:21 PM

Chris:

"Media Player in Windows 3.x and Media Player in WinXP aren't exactly the same beast now are they. "

Of course not. But then again Windows was declared a monopoly even before XP, and XP is not a monopoly, Windows is. And even in Windows, there are varying levels of product.

It's a technology that has always been part of "Windows", and has improved and innovated in and of itself over time.

"...that's developer mentality."

Yes, developers want their program to run. However, the "linux mentality" I speak of is that all developers in linux assume zero programs are installed.

For windows, the only consideration is that the APIs are up-to-date with what you coded against.

I can write a program that works for "Windows" and works in "Media Player" all the way from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP. That's the point.

#10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/1/2004 1:29:22 AM

Chris,
Re: bundling, apps on CD, etc.--not all applications that you can download include every component needed to run, if for no other reason than because the download becomes too large for a lot of folks (not everyone has a fast connection...). People that buy computers now expect that they'll be able to handle digital photos and music... the support in the OS should be there, and there's no reason for it not to be there. I suppose a better argument would be over whether or not those apps should be optional or if they should be part of the base OS, and I can see both sides of that story. But, I think that there is a strong argument that in a consumer OS running on today's hardware, there is greater benefit to making it part of the core OS, and little reason not to include it. Should they be able to "uninstall" it? Well, that becomes a tough question to answer, because there is more to the technology than just the end user application, and those components are used in other places. There is a degree of consistency and stability associated with including it, as not all application installers are very good... I'd rather have the component maintained as part of the core OS rather than every app that I install try to check for the version and the myriad possibilities that the installer might pursue from there. So do we just "hide" the end user app from the UI? What's the point in that? No icon on the Start menu? The consumer expects it and loses little (on today's hardware) through the inclusion of it if not necessary, but gains stability and consistency through its presence. Precisely because of the market share Windows has, Microsoft encounters a position that, support-wise and customer-satisfaction-wise, it's a better choice to bundle it.

As for a preference for global standards to be open, that is good for consumers on one level, but bad from an intellectual property standpoint, which in the end is bad for customers. Many beneficial, well-designed standards exist because of a financial incentive for the creators and their backers. Take away the financial incentive, and it's not good for consumers overall. Sure, everyone would love not to have to pay, but that's not realistic. Take the case of mp3--it's proven its usefulness worldwide. Should it be "opened up?" Wouldn't having your company's protocols and standards put in the public domain through no choice of your own give you a rather bitter feeling towards further investment in R&D for new technologies? Isn't it better to have to pay a small fee to the creators of mp3, rather than not have mp3 at all?

This post was edited by bluvg on Thursday, April 01, 2004 at 01:38.

#11 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 4/2/2004 3:58:54 AM

#17: "Horrification aside, this is untrue because it is only the case when an OS has a monopoly that it tries to leverage in order to get users to adopt the bundled application. It sets a precedent for monopolies. All MS (or other OSes) have to do is simply not be considered a monopoly. Or near monopoly."

This is where the key phrase "innovation" comes into play, an argument that MS has strongly fought for.

Does MS not have the right to innovate? Why not... because they are a monopoly? If the next big thing is a [insert new technology here] then why the heck can't MS create a [insert new technology here] reader/player? Of course they can.

An operating system is not sold as a kernel + nothing else. It is sold as a system ... a suite of applications. This is true of every "operating system" in the world. And all of them innovate. What makes the market leader unable to innovate -- and how is that specifically hurting competition? The only -real- answer to that is that competition prefers to not build the better mousetrap, and choose litigation over innovation for profit.

Note the most pointed example is that the customer is not hurt at all, nor does the customer really care.

This debate could go on and on. There are people who are scared of what precedent this law will require the "lead" OS to follow. Especially when it doesn't necessarily deal with OS's! What does it mean to the browser market ... will Firefox be unable to innovate and add new technologies to the product if it has 95% of the market then? We may disagree on the nitpicky details but that's where the fear is. It doesn't have to be as broad as an "operating system" but it's a technological innovation precedent.

"Many versions of Windows do not have DX7, which is why it is included in earlier games. Games contain the latest revision of the API on the CD so that you may install OR update it."

DirectX has been in Windows since Windows 95 (http://www.developer.com/open/article.php/968461). The only reason to include DirectX on a distribution is to update it. If a game was written for Windows 3.1 (or -- gasp -- NT 3.51) it was basically a DOS game and didn't care about inclusion of DX media. Or it was an OpenGL game, or it had it's own rendering engine, and in both cases it wouldn't include DirectX because it wouldn't care.

Therefore the only reason for inclusion of that API is to ensure that it is up-to-date. There is NO reason to include DirectX because an operating system needed to "install" it... (and to be clear here the point was that the API was always present, just not up to date).

This post was edited by mram on Friday, April 02, 2004 at 04:03.

#12 By 4240821 (213.139.195.162) at 10/26/2023 11:05:17 AM