MS, EU Agree on Name for Windows Sans Media Player 468
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.
Whaaaa? (Score:2, Insightful)
and.. (Score:5, Insightful)
MS can print 10 copies of it and send one to each shop, they hide it on the back of the shelvs and they are sticking to the law.
Plus "professional/home edition" or "N" hmm which sounds better..
Heh (Score:4, Insightful)
I support Microsoft most of the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, they submit a broken operating system as their means of working around the EU legal system. What really irks me is that this isn't the first time they've done this kind of thing either. When instructed to remove the IE application, they ripped out all the IE guts and crippled the OS. Now they are ripping out the MP guts and crippling it all over again.
I mean I like Joseph Lawrence as much as the next guy, but when it comes to ability, Michael Stoyanov is what really sold the show. This is how it is with Windows as well. The glitzy application isn't what keeps us coming back. It's the solid foundation underneath that's important.
And shame on the EU for accepting this as anything but contempt of court.
Before all the dumb comments start again (Score:5, Insightful)
This might of course be true, but that's not what this case is about. This is about PC vendors being able to sell a fullblown XP PC without windows media player, but with an other media installed that takes it place.
For example, some PC vendor could strike a deal with Apple to sell a PC and an ipod bundle and have itunes and quicktime included in XP and not the windows media player.
Re:What the left hand takes away... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, it's not like programmers will have to stop programming. They'll just have to work for a multinational software developer with a large patent portfolio as a menial instead of creating a startup and generating a large amount of tax income on their own.
EU dictates the name? (Score:5, Insightful)
He [MS Rep] added that the company had "some misgivings" about the new name, but decided in the end to cooperate.
Seems the EU Commision dictated what this product will be named. While I understand MS lost and must face sanctions, I fail to see why they would care what MS calls the product or how their laws could allow for such intrusion in basic marketing practices not at all related to the case at hand. Perhaps the EU can now get busy dictating the packaging it will be shipped in and start writing the ad campaigns.
Re:Henceforth known as (Score:4, Insightful)
While we're at it.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Does this open the door to MS crippling the OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the arguments that MS made during IE litigation? They said that removal of IE would cripple the OS . . . I wonder if they will eventually be putting hooks into the bundled WMP that aren't available in the separate d/l version? And then they will use the excuse that these features are "impossible" to include in the OS without bundling them in from the beginning (a completely bogus argument, but one that they made in the past with IE).
Of course I expect them to play ball with the EU commission for the time being, but I fully expect a future version that will leave EU customers behind because WMP isn't bundled. And EU customers will be pissed. Then MS will say to the EU Commission, "Don't you see how your customers demand that we bundle WMP with the OS? They are demanding the product that you have taken away from them!"
And if MS's plan goes to fruition, the EU commission will have egg on its face . . .
I'm no danheskett (Score:2, Insightful)
If Europe doesn't want the normal Windows operating system, then they are free to mandate that another version be provided. The alternative for Microsoft is to simply abandon the European market altogether, but Europe's a big country and not a market they are loath to give up so easily.
And I disagree with your assertion that this will cause problems down the road. As Microsoft separates the two operating systems into two branches, one Windows Normal edition and one Windows Media-Free edition, they can actually increase jobs in Europe as the local Windows MF version will need to be updated and can most easily be done so within the borders of Europe.
Of course, that is only one possible scenario. The other scenario is that Windows MF shrivels up and dies because no one is interested in the crippled OS. But that's not for Microsoft to decide. As the laws of national sovereignty lay out (though Americans are likely to disagree), each country should be able to decide how it will interact with its neighbors without pressure from external forces. Thus, if Europe wants to have a special version of Windows for themselves, then it is their right. For Microsoft, it's an all or nothing proposition.
I'm just sad that they had to do such a blatant act of nose spiting in the face of the European government. They could have handled this much better.
Re:What the left hand takes away... (Score:5, Insightful)
The software patent issue is far, far larger and more important than some "M$ versus teh world!" issue; please don't denigrate it to such.
Re:and.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who wants to sell a CHEAPER version. And they can tell the customers that they can download the latest WMP in 5 minutes if they want it. Or they can download WinAmp, Realplayer or whatever; or if they happen to want to use their PC for work and not playing porn videos, none of the above.
Re:don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this does what exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the EU wanted to do some actual, tangible good, maybe they should have forced Dell or Gateway to offer alternative OS's on their PCs that are sold in EU markets.
Theres a fine line between punishing the monopoliser (MS) and punishing the (mostly) innocent third parties (distributors, consumers). In what way does forcing Dell et al to ship alternative OSes on PCs help the situation other than causing financial burdens for Dell etc?
Why remove WMP at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just make the phrase "you cannot install competing stuff" illegal to appear in a license. Because locking out others is anticompetitive and not bundling.
The message should be: "Do your business. Compete on merit. Let the user/OEM/whoever choose." not "remove the media player (r) (tm) and continue your dirty games".
IE vs. WMP. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now consider IE; go grab Firefox or Mozilla or Opera. You now have argueably a better browser, with the same amount of functionality. You only lose where people use MS-specific Javascript extensions, along with a small handful of other nuances. So they remove the program that really doesn't make a difference, in my mind, and leave the one that MS really got in trouble for. Good job EU!
Re:And this does what exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
So its a happy day for anyone who likes freedom - I suspect that it will sell well in the US too if not Microsoft makes it illegal to do so.
The wedge (Score:1, Insightful)
That being the case, the name thing looks like the thin side of a wedge. Misdeeds have been defined, remedies exacted and a precedent created; the door is wide open for the EU to go after MS arse with a blowtorch. Admission of guilt? Recidivity? COntempt to court? You name it.
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
Pricing ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And this does what exactly? (Score:2, Insightful)
And why is this? Maybe because WMP is the 'best' media player available? I don't think so.. No, it's because it is bundled with Windows so everybody has it. That problem are they trying to solve. Of course it's already to late and their attempt is somewhat ridiculous.. but hey, at least they tried. *sigh*
Yeah, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What the left hand takes away... (Score:4, Insightful)
For this reason it is large companies that are the primary beneficiaries of software patents (why do you think they are the ones lobbying for them, while SMEs lobby against?).
It is a clear example of large monopolists and the patent industry versus the freedom of others to innovate. You are correct that it isn't just Microsoft, but they are one of the most vociferous advocates of software patents in the EU, and has clearly stated [opensource.org] there interest in using patents to attack Linux.Re:What the left hand takes away... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the EU, I'll take every little step as a sign of things to come. It may not be one of the biggest issues, but it is an issue. Now all we need is a version of XP without IE...and by that I mean a version where one can still update.
Re:EU dictates the name? (Score:4, Insightful)
MS would obviously try to make out that the RME would not be as good as the normal version, hence persuading customers to cement their WMP monopoly if possible. Implying somehow that media playback isn't quite up to scratch in this new version might sway customers/retailers to going for the non-N editions.
I say that the original name was deceptive because it implies that media playback is not as good on the 'full' versions of Windows. Your choice of media is somehow 'reduced'. Of course, this is false: you can put ANY media player you want on it.
MS also have a habit of naming their products very generically. For example, "Internet Explorer", or "Windows Media Player". If you say to the average Windows-using Joe, "Play this file in a media player", the words "media player" probably get translated into "Windows Media Player" in their head: that's the effect of the generic naming. It makes them think that there is only one media player. Therefore, calling this "Reduced Media Edition" might make people think that it's not capable of playing media at all. It's a *good thing* that the EU picked up on this small point.
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
But your right about the EU going about this the wrong way, file formats, API's and network protocols need to be opened up fully so that competitors can write their own apps that are fully compatible.
Re:and.. (Score:3, Insightful)
OEMs can take this and put Quicktime, or even a port of Xine into it - WHATEVER THEY THINK THE CUSTOMER WOULD LIKE INSTEAD!
That's the fucking point, not that customers would like something else - the savvy ones can already install it - but that OEMs have not been allowed to offer it, and that harms Quicktime (for example). That's the 'harm' part of monopoly abuse.
Justin.
"Would you like 'Windows XP Home (N) with Quicktime' on your pre-installed hard drive, sir, or perhaps Xine? Or will you stick with the basic Windows Media Player?"
Re:EU dictates the name? (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's get clear: Microsoft abused its dominant market position (in several occasions actually), trying to make the most Internet sites rely on Microsoft Video technology. They got fined. They had to make a special version of Windows. Then they purposedly choose a crappy name. Then you complain of governement intrusion in basic marketing?
Newsflash: if you don't want to governement intrusion, then DON'T VIOLATE THE LAW, and when comdemned to apply remedy, DON'T PLAY THE FOOL.
Ahh, bashing based on ignorant guesses... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is more simple than that. The EU didn't as much "haggle", it just rejected Microsoft's idea of calling it "Reduced Edition". Th-th-that's all, folks.
So:
1. It didn't even involve much manpower.
2. If MS didn't want to haggle or tie up "government manpower", it could have simply not picked a name that showed outright contempt to the court's decision.
MS wasn't even ordered to change all Windows XP copies it sells, it just was ordered to _also_ sell a version without the media player alongside with the normal version. In a way that doesn't discourage people from buying that version. (E.g., no charging twice for the non-MP version.)
I'd say that MS got off pretty easily there.
It seems to me that slapping a name on it that basically says "don't buy this one" is if anything just a way to show contempt there. So it just got told "nope, that won't do. Pick another one."
That's all the "haggling out."
It's that simple.
Windows a la Carte (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: How about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows XP Home Edition say what? (Score:1, Insightful)
i hope you told him to sit down and shut up.
Re:And this does what exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as a consumer, there was nothing at all stopping me from getting a better media player in any other version of Windows - if I wanted it.
Re:How about (Invalid- Here's more appropriate) (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this analogy might better illustrate what is going on.
There are three car companies.
Big "M" motors makes 94% of the cars in the world.
Big "L" motors makes hobbyist cars for about 3% of the market.
Big "A" motors makes sports cars for 3% of the market.
Big "M" motors introduces a new kind of stereo in all their cars that plays a new kind of music disk. It is a reasonably high quality stereo. Before long the only kind of music disks sold for -any- stereo are big "M" stereos. Not just in cars but also in the home, your boom box, everything.
What happened was that big "M" motors used their CAR monopoly to create a new STEREO monopoly.
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
This analogy completely fails.
1. No one has a monopoly on cars.
2. The stereo that came with your car has standard plugs so that it can be swapped with another stereo from another manufacturer from another store
3. The stereo you bought plays standard media, a standard that developed in a competitive and open market. This inherently allows number 2 to happen.
"The bottom line is, that in spite of my distaste for Microsoft, I don't see how bundling Windows Media Player with Windows fits into the category of antitrust."
Monopolists are not allowed to take a monopoly in one market and use it to extend a monopoly in another market. Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems. They have abused their monopoly, here in the States (Apple Quicktime/MS Word, OEM contracts, etc) and in Europe (which I know less about). There is NO functional or technological reason what so ever that OEMs can not decide what media player comes with their computers. The market won't fragment no more than the market for stereos has done (they all play the same media, save for Sony's individual attempts to push their stuff). Standards will be set, including API standards, that will allow for a computer from HP to work with media that a computer from Dell works with. The same could be said about web browsers. As we have it now, MS has single handedly held back the web by not updating any underlying technology in IE for years. Developers have no choice but to cling to poorly implemented standards and MS only technologies for their pages, just so a majority market can use their web pages. This is exactly why monopolies are not allowed to abuse their position. This problem would not exist at all if IE wasn't bundled with Windows and OEMs were allowed to ship any browser they chose, which I'm sure given multiple browsers would be pretty much standards compliant much like all browsers except IE are.
No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment. (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the EC wants to help keep it that way instead of whacking the media player market over the head and carting it off? [imdb.com]
Microsoft has pretty much set the price of a media player at $0, while recovering its media player development costs from OS licencing. Anyone else wanting to compete in this market pretty much needs to keep their developemnt and licencing costs around $0 or find other ways to try to maintain themselves as a going concern. This is a pretty effective barrier to competition.
From there, Microsoft is also benefiting from a "network" effect, where the simple fact that they give everyone their media player with their OS, makes others more likely to make content, offers, etc. for the Microsoft Media Player. Again, a pretty powerful force against competition.
Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
I do think RMS is an egocentric jerk, but really GNU is the heart of the FOSS movement moreso than Linux, but it doesn't get as much name recognition. Besides, there is GNU/NetBSD.
Sale sticker... (Score:1, Insightful)