MS, EU Agree on Name for Windows Sans Media Player

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has agreed with European Union antitrust regulators on a new name for Windows software sold in Europe. Officials at the U.S. software giant said they had accepted the European Union's offer to call the European version of Windows sold without Media Player "Windows XP Home Edition N" - with "N" standing for "not with media player." Microsoft's "XP Professional Edition" will also include the "N" for versions sold without the media player. The prior name for the OS was Windows XP Reduced Media Edition." News.com also mentions the choice.

What the left hand takes away...

[Sanity]

Isn't it amazing that just as one part of the EU is recognising and addressing the dangers of Microsoft's monopoly, others within the EU are pushing for software patents which would allow Microsoft to create not just one monopoly, but thousands?

What is even more amazing is that Microsoft's lobbyists seem to be having an impact on some of our so-called representatives in the European Parliament.

Take, for example, Spain's Manuel Medina MEP, who appears to have bought completely into their propaganda. In a recent article [ffii.org] he writes:

In the United Stated, computer patents have on the one hand allowed to innovation to thrive in this area and on the other hand make Bill Gates the richest man in the world.

He goes on to tell us that software authors (of whom he claims there are few in the EU, presumably because we haven't had the benefit of software patents) support patents, while only those self-interested "network users" oppose the directive.

If you live in Spain and care about this issue I ask you to contact Mr Medina and politely provide him with some counter-arguments to this pro-software patent FUD. His contact info is:

email: mmedina [at] europarl.eu.int fax Bruselas: [phone] fax Estrasburgo: [phone] mail: Europe Parlament , Rue Wiertz ASP 11G351 B-1047 BRUSELAS

Re:I support Microsoft most of the time

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

They were asked to remove Windows Media Player and did, the user can install any alternative they want as well as codecs, and af ew other things.. and it will play your movies without windows media player.

How did they intentionally cripple the OS?

Re:What the left hand takes away...

[FidelCatsro]

I must also urge any other people in the EU to also write to their local MEP about this issue. They do listen if we should loudly enough.
Oh and please point out the Lies Mr Medina is spouting to them , FUD propigates through ignorance , Whilst i am synical at heart I do belive some of the MEP may have the brains to realise they do not want to cripple local industrys .
The MS decision on the windows media player free Windows version shows us that the EU does at times have the brains to strike against abusive monopolys and has yet become totaly polouted by bribes(or as they call it lobbying) .

Re:Stupid

[kromozone]

Just like if you don't like Internet Explorer you can stop using it right? Well, almost. The more crap Microsoft integrates into the OS the harder it is to avoid using said components. I use Firefox as much as possible, but due to the way Microsoft leveraged their horrific IE into the OS I still unavoidably must use it on occassion. I absolutely love VLC, and try to use it pretty much all the time, but the more MS leverages their components into the market the more likely my ability to use VLC will be decreased. This isn't like Walmart, where the "just don't shop there" sentiment I see tossed about actually applies. They are designing in components so that I can't shop anywhere else.

Re:What the left hand takes away...

[FidelCatsro]

MEP == Member of the European Parliment, ;) ((joke))what does US stand for hehe((/joke)).
Seriously though i do appoligise i normaly try to avoid using unexplained acronyms

Re:EU dictates the name?

[ajb2718]

Because the commison don't want it called somthing that will make it less appealing than the normal version. Would anyone buy XP Crap Edition?

Re:Stupid

[buro9]

Ah, I'll bite.

What you're missing is two parts of Microsoft strategy that can be realised through creating a monopoly using Windows Media.

Part 1:

Make Microsoft Digital Rights Management the de facto standard for digital rights.

Benefit: Server sales (issuing licenses), OS sales (consuming licenses), license fee on using the tools, government medical and military implementations (guise of securing information, reality = hard to remove later).

How: DRM isn't yet being used to protect documents or emails widely, but the demand is high from those representing content owners (RIAA + MPAA, etc) to protect those industries from the sea change the internet brings to their business models.

So by playing on the inherent fear in the media industry Microsoft can appear to be a big enough player to be able to help those entities protect their media and thus their business model. The media conglomerates sign up to this because the fear of piracy exceeds the fear of getting in bed with a monopoly.

As the Windows Media DRM was shipping by default on every Windows PC, Microsoft are given a monopoly on DRM and the assumption can be made by most companies, governments, etc... that when they start needing DRM for documents, emails, etc... that they can assume that Microsoft DRM is already installed on the system.

Thus Microsoft can win the DRM market before the market is truly born or has healthy competition. The advantages to them being long term financial security and growth.

Part 2:

Make Microsoft Windows Media the de facto standard for encoding and decoding multimedia.

Benefits: License fees mostly. Just imagine Microsoft earning a few cents of every DVD sold, every MP3 player sold, every DVD player sold. And imagine what this would do to Linux distros who won't pay to license the technology or wish to ship an encumbered piece of software.

How: It's already happening, convert cinemas to digital projectos and ship Windows Media files. DRM protected of course to ensure no piracy in the cinema supply chain. Encourage the studios to use that same platform for packaging media for re-sale later (via online rental and DVD's, and other media). Promote an encode once ship many times basis where the protection is just a given and subtitles, languages, etc are embedded from the outset.

That's the top down... but then we also have the bottom up: Put Windows Media on all Windows desktop, make it a safe assumption that WMP is installed, so that when companies make technology decisions there is a given advantage to WMP in that you don't have to worry about having to have something shipped.

So... Windows Media is a bitter pill to swallow indeed. It has two objectives, and two means of hurting other companies now and in the future, both of which serve to reinforce the existing monopoly.

Sure, the consumer doesn't give a shit that much, and frankly I don't care too deeply about what format something comes in.

However it is plain what they are trying to do and how they are doing it... and it is a VERY GOOD THING that the EU have forced them to remove WMP. As this erodes a lot of the basis for the above two points.

You don't want ANYONE making the assumption that WMP just exists, and you do want an open competition in DRM, media player and media format markets.

Hope that helps enlighten a little.

Bad for consumers

[jrumney]

So instead of a descriptive name telling consumers they are buying a "Reduced Media Edition" of Windows, the EU would rather consumers saw the completely undescriptive and easy to miss "N". Whose side are they on again? It seems the only ones to benefit from this will be Microsoft, when people grab this off the shelf without knowing what it is then go out and buy another copy of uncrippled Windows when they realise their mistake.

Re:Stupid

[1u3hr]

This whole "no media player thing" makes no sense to me

Probably because the EU's reasoning wasn't explained.

As the Commission says: "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."

Basically, if WMP is guaranteed built in, we have the same situation as recently with web standards -- if somethng doesn't work in your browser, but it does in IE, well, use IE or wo without. For media, it'll be everything is locked down with WMP DRM; and everyone who wants to provide media will have to pay MS for the right to make WMP-compatible files/streams.

And it's not "NO MEDIA PLAYER", it's NO WINDOWS media player". Vendors are free to bundle any of a number of alternatives. Or you can download your choice in 5 minutes; even MS's WMP if you want.

Re:What the left hand takes away...

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Hes the same crap that you in US of A call senator.

Re:What the left hand takes away...

[arniepoo]

I did write to my MEP (Peter Skinner) and got the following reply:

* We are not in favour of the patenting of software as in the US.

* Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drifting towards extending patentability to inventions, which would not have been traditionally allowed, and to stop patentability of pure business methods, algorithms or mathematical methods.

* Software products as such, must not be patented.

* Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive does not have any adverse effect on opensource software and small software developers.

* Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies.

Furthermore, the Labour Euro MPs are supporting a UK campaign for a defence fund for small companies to protect themselves from litigation abuse by dominant market players.

Please be assured that the Council of Ministers and the Commission cannot ignore our views as democratically elected Members of the European Parliament. Unless we get full agreement between the three institutions (Parliament, Council and Commission) on this Directive, there is no guarantee that this law will be passed.

..............

So it would appear that at least some MEPs have reservations about this and the dodgy dealings of the Commission

Thank you for correcting me!

[dallaylaen]

Now I know I was secretly right, but obviously misinformed :)

I've googled it:

http://www.aufait.net/~garnet/muse/lla.html [aufait.net]

The current settlement prohibits Microsoft's OEM license from disallowing dual boot machines. This was the tactic used against BeOS. It also allows OEMs to pre-install other applications without Microsoft's permission. This was a tactic used against Netscape.

Does this regulation apply in EU?
(I guess it does)

Re:Why remove WMP at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, since the Media Player was included in all versions of Windows, the vendor would have to pay for it in any case, whether they install another player or not. This is the entire reason why Microsoft is required to produce this new separate version at a lower price. The theory being that now PC vendors can include another media player and only end up paying for one media player in the software bundle. Of course, in practice Microsoft will do its best to make this an unattractive option for PC vendors.

Re:and..

[1u3hr]

WMP will not be cheaper

You're probably right, I found this statement in stories last December [com.com]: "The EU ordered that Microsoft couldn't charge more for the version sans player, but it didn't say that Microsoft had to charge less." Seems a bit wimpy to me, should have mandated it be at least a few percent cheaper, otherwise the OEMS will just ignore it.

You mean their long history of astroturfing?

[Moraelin]

Yes, Microsoft does have a mile long history. One of trying to bully the courts into submission via massive anti-government propaganda.

Remember where the word "astroturfing" comes from? Some of us haven't forgotten yet. In case you don't remember: during the anti-trust trial in the USA, MS paid people to create the impression that everyone is pro-MS, pro-monopoly and anti-DOJ. They pretty much tried to make it look like the government better back down ASAP or face massive population dissent backlash.

That in addition to the direct MS PR about how the government and anti-trust laws "stiffle innovation" and whatnot. Or direct threats that they'll move to another country and stop paying taxes in the US if they're not allowed to break the laws in the US. Etc.

Basically, again: an attempt to bully the US government into submission.

So that's what I see in that "Reduced Edition" bullshit. Yes, something fitting their long history of anti-government propaganda. "Don't buy the version the government made us make" is, in fact, _exactly_ the kind of message that fits MS's history.

And again, IMHO the EU was pretty civilized about it. They just told MS "nope, try another name".

And finally, I don't see MS naming any other product "Reduced Edition". XP Home Edition had features removed too, and it wasn't called "Reduced Networking Edition", no? Or MS Works isn't called "Office Reduced Edition." _No_ marketter will willingly put words like "reduced" or "less" on a box, unless they want to make a point. Those are words that tell the public "don't buy it". "More" is good, "less" is bad. (See euphemisms like "more taste per callory" in sweets ads, instead of saying "less calories.") So I have a hard time believing that "XP Reduced Media Edition" was anything _but_ a heavy handed attempt to mock the court order.

Heh. Didn't think I'd get to say the word "astroturfing" again, what with the relatively pro-MS messages (by /. standards) I'm usually writing lately.