Windows Could Lose Media Player in Europe? 605
Chris Gondek writes "If Microsoft cannot settle an antitrust case brought by European Union regulators, the company may be ordered to remove Windows Media Player as an integrated feature of the dominant Windows operating system, at least for personal computers sold in Europe.
The European Commission also could order Microsoft to include rival media players with Windows to make those products as easy for users to access as Microsoft's own music and video player."
This is rediculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, nobody *had* to use Real OR WMA. MPEG is viewable on any OS out of the box. The the Real and QuickTime players are free, and QuickTime is easy to install to boot (save for the annoying upgrade notices, another thing I don't want "bundled" with my OS).
Did the European Commission ever consider people don't want the alternatives? I don't need extra little icons in my task tray, I don't need spyware, I don't need notifications of news or Pro versions. Please, let us install our own crapware.
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that they are installing their own and excluding the others, so they are trying to make them either offer everything, including the competitors, or offer nothing, including their own. At least I think that's what's happening.
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:5, Funny)
"Good day. I see I'm not registered to play MP3, MPG, or AVI. You must have mistakenly unchecked them during install. I've fixed this error automatically"
"Hi! Just thought I'd pop up a message telling you there are new ads to view! Click here to view"
"Trying to uninstall me!? Please write a paragraph on your reasons for uninstalling and submit it to RealMedia for approval. Have you considered upgrading instead?"
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:5, Informative)
Prediction: (Score:5, Funny)
Later, a future Service Pack will 'break' the competitors products.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Re:Prediction: (Score:3, Funny)
you gettin anything on Wednesdays Lotto Numbers?
this isn't the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
My beef starts when the frigging IE and WMP are so deeply entrenched in the OS. I would stop half my MS bashing if, when you fire up the "Add/Remove programs", you get IE and WMP among normal apps. And when you wish to uninstall them, it works.
Clicked links outside the broswer will randomly open in IE, open in a new Firefox window or the same Firefox window I was browsing in. And that sucks.
Don't stop bundling. Stop TANGLING and BOGGING.
Re:this isn't the answer (Score:4, Informative)
Re:this isn't the answer (Score:5, Informative)
Try that for kicks. Then open Explorer (your file browser); in the address field type in "http://slashdot.org" and hey presto - Internet Explorer opens Slashdot
I thought you said you removed it?
No, what you do is remove the SHORTCUTS for it. Not quite the same thing now, is it?
Imagine if all programs were "uninstalled" like that. Your 2 GB $program would still take up 2 GB of space, that you can't reclaim, and it still takes up RAM. Not quite what I have in mind, when I uninstall programs
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux doesn't come with Windows Media Player, or winamp, why should windows come with other people's shit. This doesn't make any sense. I think Europe is just ass backwards and hates the large American company. Windows should just screw them over and stop selling in Europe and offer no more licenses to Europeans, and then go on a lawsuit frenzy against anyone that continues to run windows over there.
It's ok if you hate Microsoft but telling them their not allowed to enhance their products is retarded, if you get a AC delco stereo in a GM car(AC delco used to be owned by GM, maybe still is) you can't take GM to court because they didn't package their car with a aiwa stereo.
Also, windows makes no attempt to not allow you to install real player, or quick time, so i don't see how their in the wrong.
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is rediculous...AND you have no idea!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you will feel good, because almost half of the class will have learned how to print a page from the internet. "Download"? You might as well have asked for the conversion factor between Teslas and Gauss. Now, with that information in hand, go to the Quicktime web site and try to get the latest plug-in that is needed.
Now, without looking back, close your eyes and try to spell "rediculous".
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, instead of including other products etc, let the user choose whether or not he/she wants to install media player during the installation of Windows.
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
Duh. How about the OEM? You think Microsoft makes computers? (Well, they probably will do that, too at some point, where they can get away with it.)
"Rediculous: as opposed to Greendiculous or Bluediculous..."
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
You see RealPlayer only started to suck when MS offered its ASF encoder/server for free hoping to dethrown Real who needs to charge for their software because they don't have an OS monopoly to finance everything they do for the next 10 years.
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
That'd mean that a lot of geeks wouldn't have cheap XBox Linux servers now though. Dunno why they'd want them though, not when modern motherboards with a processor, memory, etc, cost about the same and run faster (e.g. Asrock mobo + 1.6GHz Duron + RAM + cheap HD + cheap case)
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you are the victim of some crime doesn't give you the right to commit your own crimes or even resort to bullying other people. The "other people" in this case being the mass market, the very people Real hoped would purchase its product.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not taking Microsoft's side (you hear that moderators?). It is certainly wrong for MS to force out competitors through its Monopoly. Regardless, Real should never have used their product to gather information about me and my computer usage.
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead they decided to add every money making scheme into their software to scam as much money out of people as they can.
How many people would choose real over wmp? Not many. People have the option of installing real, they have the option of going to real.com and downloading it. Why do they need it when installing a OPERATING SYSTEM.
Re:This is ridiculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for Real, I think their actions speak for themselves. Rather than find a niche to compete in they lowered themselves and turned their product from bad to worse. I remember a time when the player was nice, but even Winamp of the time was better. Basically I'd say they just need to create a much more badass streaming server as that is where the money is, charging for Real One was ultimately a mistake as it was a piece of crap so users felt short changed by it when there are plenty of other free players available. Of course the guys at Winamp have it easy as they are financed by another monopoly. (AOL)
That is allRe:This is ridiculous... (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides that, the web services industry pretty much as a whole. They control both AIM and ICQ which together make up a most impressive userbase. They in the past have followed a lot of the same practices as Microsoft. They would crowd out competition all the time. I remember they went in and bought out my local ISP so for a time AOL was the only option. Then I found another ISP which three years later was bought
Re:This is ridiculous... (Score:3, Informative)
And bitch about AOL/Time W
Why Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it be because competition is a good thing? Sure Real and their practices suck, but would you rather have no choice but WMP? And I'm only addressing you in the general sense, because like americans, there are undoubtably millions of europeans who don't know or give a rat's patoot, so long as they can watch or listen to their hearts content.
Encourage a level playing field and let each player, or those yet to be born, to have a fair shot at it and survive or die based upon their own merits.
"Psst! Push Ogg!"
Re:Why Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, including large other products in the OS will simply make them larger, and the inclusion of other products will likely have nothing to do with the quality of the players themselves. Secondly, why can't customers choose their own players? We're not all stupid, though the government would like to think that, I'm sure.
Re:Why Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
This "solution" is just so typical of what you would expect to be worked out by politicians. I can't say I'm surprised. The EU's stance on software patents and copyright has eliminated any respect I might have had for their depth of vision or understanding of the software industry as whole. The only surprising thing is that they aren't siding with the corporate giant, but that's probably just because it is an American company. Probably. I don't know that for a fact, but I do wonder how this would be playing out if Microsoft were an EU operation. Oh well.
Re:Why Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
No, really? I've gotten the impression that many posters on this topic don't recall the past several years and battles with Microsoft concerning browsers. Many voices said that Netscape now sucked and t
Re:Why Indeed (Score:4, Interesting)
Netscape was poop circa NS4. It was that blunder that got them in trouble, since people began looking for other browsers. Had NS4 been even equal to IE4, NS would probably still be dominant today (and Mozilla would probably never be open-sourced, but that's neither here nor there).
When competing with Microsoft, the cardinal rule is: don't release crap. If you try to race Microsoft to see who can do the crappiest software, you're toast, because no one is better at making money off of crap software than Microsoft. Look at Adobe. They're getting squeezed by Apple and Microsoft in their core business (photo software). Yet, neither is really making a dent, and likely never will. Adobe continues to release quality software, and even if Microsoft releases a Photoshop competitor that matches it in quality, Adobe will still win, thanks to the installed base of experienced users. Of course, if Adobe stumbles and Photoshop has a bad version that nobody wants to use, Microsoft may well take over the market. But you can hardly blame Microsoft for Adobe releasing crap, can you?
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
I notice from Windows XP that MS seem to be playing a bit more nicely with other mail clients, browsers, etc by enabling the MS products to be completely hidden. I'd like to see more of that.
When I install a Windows machine I go through the settings and pretty much invert all the defaults which are silly/ugly
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the crux of the problem. I don't see how value-adds should be illegal or considered monopolistic. I do understand how the Netscape story was different, but hey, they challenged Microsoft directly and publicly -- they sorta deserved what they got. The deal with the video player is completely different. Real build a crappy product
It WOULD be ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not ridiculous! (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom to install competing software is only available to those with internet connections.
In truth, its good for you to have them all on there anyway - competition in media player services give the public more choice of suppliers of premium media, and this reduces both the ability of Microsoft to be a majority toll-gate provider of software solutions, and of those servi
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
What? Hardly.
The majority selects the government. The government enforces the will of them.
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why a Constitution is needed: so that the minority can tell the majority to fuck off and mind its own business.
Without that, all you have is another form of dictatorship.
Max
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is rediculous... (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who wants to see media players competing on quality and price rather than the current unfair advantage WMP has will benefit.
how can they demand this for media player (Score:5, Insightful)
seriously, which is more ingrained and used every day?
Re:how can they demand this for media player (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how can they demand this for media player (Score:3, Insightful)
Try explaining telnet & gopher to your mom.
Re:how can they demand this for media player (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you decide what browsers get in?
If I create a hacked up leviramsey version of Mozilla and post it on SourceForge, am I entitled to demand that my browser be included?
Or if some company decides to customize Moz with the hidden motive being to get their logo on the desktop of every copy of Windows. Should they get free advertising like that?
These things look simple when you assume that there's only a few options. But if there's a situation where Netscape and IE are the only browsers to get this
Re:how can they demand this for media player (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how can they demand this for media player (Score:5, Insightful)
This won't change a thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not so much software shipping with the OS, as APIs relying on the integrated software. Where Internet Explorer is concerned, for example, the Windows API offers certain features that are implemented in IE rather than in the OS. This means that from the moment you've got -any- piece of software that uses any of those API functions (to render help, for instance), then IE will no longer be optional. This is why back in the days when Windows 98 was released but didn't dominate the market yet, some third party software packages shipped with IE (in the same way games ship with the DirectX version they need nowadays), so that their software would run on 95. And the IE-ization of Windows 95 boxes everywhere happened just on its own.
And you can -bet- the exact same thing will happen here. One likely possibility is, [Palladium.latestName()] will provide some API to allow media-oriented software to transfer audio/video to the hardware via an encrypted conduit, and that API will be implemented in Microsoft Media Player. And without looking so far forward, I believe that there already are some products (Adobe Premiere?) that depend on some bit of API provided by Microsoft Media Player.
Even if your OS comes with competing products, sooner or later you'll need to install MMP.
Judge Jackson had the right idea all along. Split up Microsoft, **AND** have ANY technical information (API definitions...) exchanged between MS-core and MS-components made public.
This way, competitors could have accessed the information necessary to provide THEIR own implementation of any middleware API Microsoft published.
Re:This won't change a thing. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:how can they demand this for media player (Score:5, Funny)
Back in the old days, we had this thing called "ftp"...
Re:how can they demand this for media player (Score:3, Insightful)
That may remove the icons, the apps are still there and are awakened when the OS wants them.
BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BS (Score:5, Interesting)
But then the next service pack would probably revert this... all sorts of problems.
Besides I have a little sympathy for Real, QuickTime etc. because I'm sure that once they'll be in they'd try to be every inch as monopolistic as Microsoft.
Maybe a better approach would be to order that Microsoft has to release interoperability specifications for any data format they use. And make sure that unlike in the US, this ruling can be used by Microsoft's biggest rivals, which means Linux, which means that people could use it specifically in GPL software.
Re:BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the early posts seem to be astroturf crap like the above. To answer it anyway: PSP and PS are both stand-alone products. They're not bundled with the PC. Or put it another way, if a retailer wanted to bundle either or both he could. But with WMP nestled inside Windows, and MS not offering Windows without it, the retailer would have to pay more to offer an alternative. So he doesn't, even aside from the heat he'd take from MS. That's the essence of abuse of monopoly, leveraging dominance in OS to wipe out competing media players.
And if you don't care, about that, perhaps you might care about Palladium and DRM that is being woven into Windows and its media player as we speak, with upgrades becoming less optional as the alternatives wither away.
Better hold on to it... (Score:4, Funny)
MS To Offer Cigarettes with Windows (Score:5, Funny)
(AP) Microsoft Corp, responding to the unbundling of Media Player from Windows, announced today a broad partnership with RJ Reynolds where a carton of some of RJ Reynold's famed brands, such as Camels, will be offered with Windows Longhorn for Home edition.
"We're excited about adding the Camel camel as one our of automated helpers.", said Microsoft President Steve Balmer. "For example, during a longer search, our Camel character will light up and ask a user to join in."
The Microsoft Longhorn RJ Reynolds edition is expected to be released world wide.
Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should they also demand that they also remove Internet Explorer?
Steve.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
This thing seems to me to have been blown out of proportion long ago.
I'm with microsoft on this one (Score:5, Funny)
Rivals can simply include an operating system with their media players if they want to compete.
Microsoft will just have to purchase Winamp.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet they'll be a checkbox during installation "If you want to be able to view video's you will need to click the checkbox" and if checked it will automatically download Media player.. Seriously how hard does microsoft have to work to defeat these things? Last I checked Internet Explorer was still being shipped.. If they really wanted to help, why wouldn't the gov't just invest grants in RealPlayer or something instead of wasting money trying to fight microsoft.
Installing Realplayer is great punishment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fabulous! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fabulous! (Score:3, Informative)
I'd say somewhere around Windows 1.0. There's always been a media player of some kind of simple
Re:Fabulous! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to provide any of that to the consumer. Everything they provide in the OS is a lost sales opportunity somewhere else. It's totally anti-competitive of them to provide any of it. You should have to pay for every feature you get. The OS should just make the computer run.
Let's see - besides the cost of the core Windows OS then (which I'm sure you'll argue should be free - so let's just leave that out), you would probably pay about $50 each for every new program you add to the system. If you add 10 new programs to the computer (which is conservative), you get to spend $500.
Now, what does Media Player have to do with the core OS? Nothing. It "merely" makes it useful.
Troll.
Thanks for making our case. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just so you know, that practice is called dumping and it is illegal.
Either that or the products you are listing are not as expensive as you claim.
If goverments around the world do not have the balls to treat it as what it is is a different matter, but it lights my day when people like you arrive to the correct conclussion without aiming to do so: MS is killing the IT industry and the situation is so desperate that the only wa
This is a bad thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
By not including windows media player, it has less of a chance of becoming dominant, and most people don't want to configure and support Quicktime, Real, and Windows Media.
Everybody has it... (Score:3, Insightful)
What everyone actually has is Quicktime.
Re:This is a bad thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Everbody has it? No. I don't, and I suspect many others don't. And I'm unclear what you mean by 'all three formats'. I assume you mean the big three players, but that's quite different from three formats.
Personally I tend to use MPEG4 which has plenty of support, on a wide variety of platforms. That support includes playback, creation, and streaming tools. I can point to mplayer, vlc, ffmpeg, 3ivx (which enables MPEG4 on Media Player), xvid, divx, darwin streaming server, etc etc.
This, AFAICT, is the real issue. Which formats, rather than players, will be dominant. I don't particularly like the MPEG4 licencing conditions, but at least it is supported by more than one company. The standard is available and widely implemented. WMV, and whatever video and audio codecs it contains, don't appear to be so open.
Hello? McFly? That is the POINT. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if it was your intention, but you just indicated what the problem is. Look at your assertion - you use WMV because "everybody has it" and to avoid the hassle of supporting other formats.
That is EXACTLY why Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to do what they are doing. Now it may seem silly to make them unbundle WMP. It wasn't a big deal before, but that was before multimedia over the internet was a real possibility. Now it is a huge business. They are leveraging their OS monopoly to enter and dominate other businesses.
Yours is exactly the attitude that they are banking on. Do you get it now?
This could be even more important (Score:3, Informative)
What's right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Users expect a certain amount of stuff built into the OS. Maybe this expectation exists because of MS, but it exists. Gnome and KDE both come with a bunch of software. Granted, they're both OSS, but I think users have this expectation and it must be met to some degree for any company to succeed.
I know a lot of newbie users who can't even figure out how to get Acrobat installed and without help from someone who's computer literate, they wouldn't be able to read PDF attachments, which are pretty common.
Anyway, I'm torn on it. I don't want to see MS continue as a monopoly, but I want them to fail for the right reasons, not some arbitrary, "you can add this, but not that" kind of rule unless it's applied equally to all competitors.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's right? (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is simple. Including $APP as an optional install is not illegal.
Making $APP impossible to remove, making it take back the default position after security upgrades, bullying OEM vendors to not include $COMPETITOR_APP, deliberately making it hard for $COMPETITOR_APP to work on your OS, making all your OTHER_APPS dependent upon $APP,
those steps are illegal, if you're doing it from a monopoly position.
If microsoft had a 25% market share, it would not be illegal. If microsoft makes such apps unnstallable, or even better, not installed by default, it would not be illegal.
Microsoft lost the browser case, it's just a change in the US government meant the penalties they were to suffer for the illegal acts were much reduced.
The problem comes when
a) you have a monopoly
b) AND you use that monopoly to gain a monopoly in another market
If you think about it, preventing one company from using it's position in one market to overwhelm other markets is defending free market capitalism, not destroying it.
Customers benefit from having a choice, as it forces vendors to compete on their merits, not just the fact that they are only vendor in town.
Well (Score:4, Funny)
In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, why would the above be considered a joke, while people are actually seriously considering a comparable ruling against MS?
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why would the above be considered a joke, while people are actually seriously considering a comparable ruling against MS?
Because neither McDonalds nor Burger King has ever been ruled to have a monopoly in the fast food market, or even the hamburger market.
It's not illegal to obtain a monopoly. However, once you do have a monopoly, the rules change. You're not allowed to bundle your monopoly product with any other product that is in an area that does have competition. That's what Real is calling the foul over, and the EU seems to be agreeing with.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Bah. (Score:3, Insightful)
As to WMP, I think the ability to play a video or sound has gotten to be something people expect of an OS. Macs can sure as hell play video out of the box - to me it would be unfair to say MS couldn't do this. Let software compete on merit - not on the basis of goofy artificial restrictions to protect software that very few people want.
Years ago, we went through the same dance with the browser - and that dance looks retarded now. Imagine if Windows today shipped without a browser? How would most people go about getting one? It would be a crippled OS. As years go by, and PC's do more media work, WMP will look the same way.
The specs for WMA? (Score:3, Insightful)
With media player gone, they'll still leave all the API stuff so every other media player will still be tied to Microsoft's format, and as a consequence tied to Windows.
Even insisting they release an x86 binary library for playing WMA on *nix and upgrade it at the same time as any changes to the Windows version would open up all the DRM infected stuff to linux users. We might not like the DRM, but in two years time when most folk get their music that way, it's going to be abig obsticle for Linux adoption if folk can't buy tunes.
Monopoly vs Public Utility (Score:3, Insightful)
But the answer in the end was not microscale adjustments to their business but to have it redefined. If you want to protest against MS, then do it terms of macroscale effects such as actually splitting it up along product lines.
Wrong approach (Score:4, Insightful)
My Hard Drive (Score:3, Interesting)
Side effects (Score:3, Interesting)
If MS have include Winamp, then Ogg support would be avaliable by default on every new computer in Europe. Would help it a big bit I'm sure.
Except what's to stop MS from keeping all the file associations linked to there own programs? Dosen't matter how many other media players they include if the default is there own.
Anyways, it's a stupid idea
Bad and wrong move (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's just my two cents since I am still using a stoneage of a computer clocking barely at 500MhZ
Seems to me ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft between a rock and a hard place (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard place = _because_ most users don't care, they just use the bundled software. I.E. WMP. Which just leads us to the monopoly issue...
So, Microsoft has to either
A) Upset its user base by "breaking" their OS so as to not play media right out of the box or
B) Be sued out of their pants by every company that comes along and makes a competing product to some particular component to the monolith known as windows.
Unfortunately for end users, it will most likely be B, and this will just have to be a fact of life that they will have to learn to live with.
Of course, M$ can always include their competitors software with Windows, and ask at installation which they would prefer. But then where does it end? Which competitors must they include? Do each of these competitors have to pay to have their software included? If so how much? Will we see Windows price explode as a result? If they don't have to pay, then is it really right to force Microsoft to include their competitors software on a product they have spends years developing? Will our future Windows disks be 1 part Windows, 3 parts software from all their competetors from all the different software niches?
Another possible solution would be to "inform" users at install that there are these other media players available, and can be found at these URL's... but of course users will say "Whatever. I can just click this check box right here and install WMP here and now"
As much as I am against a monopoly, I really don't see an easy solution to the problem. There are so many questions that need to be answered before we can find a solution.
People expect to have media players, web browsers, or whatever monopoly issue we are discussing, ready and working when they take the computer out of the box. And I'll tell you what, if RealSpy, err... RealPlayer ever comes default installed on any of my OEM Windows disks, I'm gonna be pissed.
And how is Macintosh any different? (Score:3, Interesting)
I use Media Player for playing video on my Windows PC (Winamp for music though!) - and whilst I understand this not to everyones taste, and that MS should offer alternatives - but I don't see how this is any different to Apple.
Re:And how is Macintosh any different? (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument is not unlike Sony having a monopoly on the volume dials they use in their stereos. They create the *entire* product so they dictate what goes in it. Apple is no different in this regard.
Regardless, Apple is not not a monopoly and therefore does not have to abide by the same rules as Microsoft. more to the point, Apple is not an ILLEGAL monopoly like Microsoft.
I, on the other hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) choose not to install WMP, IE and other MS add-ons during Win installation and
b) remove them in the same manner as any third-party soft.
That sounds like a good solution to me: newbies would be able to have functionality out of the box ( yes, MS's products would still be defaults - but hey, MS makes the system after all, they should have a say-so what to include with their system ) and experienced users would be in position to use MS' competitors products.
Why not just put it on a separate CD? (Score:5, Insightful)
<rant>
Why?? So they should compete for getting their software on the Windows CD now?? How do you get included? Marketing share? Bribes? Sex with Bill Gates?
Why not just do it like this:
They should also force them to make their software *uninstallable* like... well, their competing applications.
I'm fine with that. MS should be happy since they can include all their shit. They'll even get a separate CD and space to include More Junk Than Ever Before. Mozilla users will be happy because they can avoid IE, etc. Only problem here might be the feeling that you're paying for more than you'll use, but that's not a new problem at least. At least the situation would improve.
</rant>
Include Third Party CD (Score:3, Interesting)
What I would like to see, whether this be Microsoft, Apple or any other computer company, is a third-party showcase CD bundled with the OS. The CD would include a showcase of software available for the OS. The content would be the sort included with your average computer magazine. I would suggest that the third-parties on the CD should subsidise the cost of the CD, since they are being done a favour by be being included. Its not necessarily a perfect solution, but it is one that could be of interest to some people. Of course if you make a 'temporary' installation of these OSs you won't necessarily have this CD, but then the choice of yours for purchasing a permananent CD. Maybe the competitors could get together and have shops include this CD with all new computers. The OS manufacturers needn't be the ones with the initiative.
Windows distributions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't allow Microsoft to bundle any of its additional apps with Windows, but give other select distributors rights to bundle software in a Windows package.
You could then have those other distributors offering Windows with multiple browsers, e-mail clients, media players, etc.
I know that people will shriek "ARRGH! No! We don't want to have to choose from mass piles of media players, etc."
But what is the alternative? Microsoft forcing you to use the 'default' Microsoft software? Software which has file formats/codecs controlled by a convicted monopolist?
We already know that Microsoft is certainly not trustworthy. Not even trustworthy enough to distribute its own operating system. Damn, you can't even trust its damn patches.
AARGH... people should learn what MONOPOLY means!! (Score:3, Insightful)
How many more time
How many more time
One requirement
Mod me a troll or flamebait if you must, but I am pretty sure some
Re:That is wrong.. (Score:5, Informative)
Being forced to include third-party software is simply the punitive action to punish MS for a past misdeed and help the companies who were the victim of that cheating.
Re:That is wrong.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing. Provided you do not have a monopoly and illegally use that monopoly to remove choice from the marketplace as Microsoft has done. Forcing MS to carry third-party software is a remedy for MS actions. Had MS not broken the law, a remedy would not be required. MS has not one to blame for this except itself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:capatalism on its death bed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF!? (Score:5, Insightful)
It died when Microsoft became a monopoly.
Re:Microsoft != monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
No they aren't free because of Microsoft's market dominance decides which programs are mainstream (usually those that run on Windows) or not. This has in turn a huge impact in the business. Maybe not in your room, but in the world in general.
Re:WTF!? (Score:4, Insightful)
The capitalist system allowed them to get where they are today. They used the laws and regulations to stop smaller companies. They must therefore abide by the laws now.
Re:WTF!? (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't appear to be some anti-American "let's hurt Microsoft" reasoning by the EU; their concerns seem very legitimate to me.
Re:That's fucking retarded. (Score:5, Funny)
if you are a FreeBSD user how can you say ANYTHING without bias?
Fact: BSD users are losing IQ points...
Re:You've gotta love the hyprocrisy of Europe (Score:3, Interesting)
First MS is not the first company to be condamned by a Europe court. You want to sell things in Europe? So you have to follow Europe's rules wether you are American or European. I have countless examples. The biggest difference here is that unlike in America, MS is not allowed to inject millions of dollars in Europeans governments. Lobbies can't buy European politics. Sorry, try again.
Yes, the Evil Europe is subsidizing the Evil Airbus and the Good US is tryin
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)