Microsoft Windows XP N Flops 277
ChocLinux writes "Dell, Lenovo and Fujitsu Siemens have announced they have no plans to pre-install Windows XP N, the version of Windows without a bundled media player that Microsoft released to comply with the European Commission antitrust ruling. It is now almost six months since Microsoft released Windows XP N, and the fact that no-one wants to sell it suggests that this antitrust case may be going the way of the US one. Also, the article raises the question - now that RealNetworks has settled with Microsoft, will anyone bother to complain about this? Of course there's a chance that the EC might bring a new antitrust case against Microsoft, but how much more effective is that likely to be?"
No wonder it failed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and what about the 'real monopoly' in Windows? It is also known as Internet Explorer, and only God knows why EU did not do anything about that when they were at it.
Come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
This was software designed to satisfy bureaucracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Some fun facts (Score:5, Insightful)
MS having to offer a version of XP without the media player preinstalled isn't the only outcome of the antitrust case and certainly isn't the most important part, yet
First off, people should be aware that MS was also fined 500 million euros, quite a lot of money, wouldn't you agree.
Second, and probably most important, the EU found that MS is on pupose hindering interoperability between its products and third party products. In essence, they use their monopoly on the desktop, to also sell server software. To counter this MS now has to disclose technical information to its competitors to enable them to compete on an equal footing.
Now of course MS is trying to give out as little information as possible, but they don't seem to get by with this tactic, which is of course a good thing.
Third, about the media player. I don't think it's that important if companies actually sell the version without the media player, what is important is the fact that it is now clear that bundling more and more desktop apps in order to utilize a monopoly in one area to get market share in an other one is a no-no.
barn door, horse... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose there would be no appreciable mass market for a version of windows without IE either.
It would be nice if one these courts acted with clue and actually addressed the problem and not the symptom. Can you imagine if the AT&T ruling had been "offer phone service without long distance"? Instead, a court with balls actually broke up the old company and prevented the "parent" from competing in the market they had abused.
Yes, I know that's a gloss/simplification, but the point is that structural wrongs require structural remedies.
Problem of lazy users. (Score:1, Insightful)
Huh! and is MS to be blamed for that?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Complain about what?? Is Microsoft to be blamed for companies refusing the carry Windows XP-N? Sometimes I wonder why submissions are worded just to make it through the Slashdot Editors.
I have also wondered why a company should be penalized for including a web-browser and a multimedia player. Every modern OS has one built in. But then, it could be just my biased viewpoint.
Re:Some fun facts (Score:3, Insightful)
To you, me and the vast majority of people, yes, it's a lot of money. But to Microsoft it isn't.
And this will do what, exactly? Make them misbehave some other way? Dodge around this particular method of sliminess and right on into some other method?
Microsoft knows, and has always been able to see, what is "right" and what isn't. But like all large commercial enterprises they don't give a flying fuck about right and wrong.
Get caught with your hand in the jar: your hand gets slapped, you pay a relatively minor price, and get to keep the VAST FUCKING FORTUNE YOU GRABBED DOING IT.
Lots of incentive to change their ways, huh?
Restrictions don't work (Score:1, Insightful)
So we have customers who don't want the less-integrated version and a vendor who doesn't do a honest effort marketing the less-integrated version. And bureacrats are suprised? shees..
The only proper way to deal with monopolies is to split them. Everything else is just bullshit.
If there where a "Microsoft 1" and "Microsoft 2", both with rights to sell current windows versions, Dell, Lenovo and Fujitsu Siemens would actually have vendors to choose from. And there could be real honest effort to compete and differentiate..
Funny how... (Score:1, Insightful)
It is open (Score:5, Insightful)
Also what's this IE monopoly you speak of? I'm using Firefox right now in Windows, works great. Windows seems to do nothing to stop it form working, and indeed will make it the default browser, if asked to.
Small fines = big profits (Score:5, Insightful)
The really important point is #3, interoperability with other platforms. Naturally MS are holding out on this one too. It's likely to become even more important if webservices take off because with their OS Microsoft can act as a choke point between every provider and every end-user.
Microsoft are acting in a predictable way. They are a monolopy, and the way to continue with your monopoly rents is to fight every case with every method available right on until the bitter end. Do the arithmetic. It's a no-brainer. Only jail-time and billions in fines would make a difference.
It's all about the price (Score:3, Insightful)
But since there was no price difference, this thing was DOA. Everyone knew it the moment it was announced.
Make it optional (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Come on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It is open (Score:5, Insightful)
You are if people supplying or selling the data or entertainment media you want to access only supply it in these proprietary (I include IE here, we all know lots of sites only work in IE) formats. You can use various codecs etc, but when it comes to DRM you have no legal alternative. So this is handing MS a monopoly on downloadable media because they can tell all the vendors they only need to supply in one locked format, paying Bill his tithe for every download. Trying to forestall this is what the whole case is about, not the players per se.
Re:Some fun facts (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with fining a monopoly is that they can simply pass the costs onto their customers. Unless the fine is large enough to cause Microsoft immediate cash flow problems they are likely to laugh it off.
Re:Speaking as a mac user, it pains me to say this (Score:2, Insightful)
Installing things like "yaboot" on a MacMini can be really dangerous. Following the instructions to the T I ended up with a MacMini that I couldn't boot, boot from CD, etc [the lack of a BIOS is really annoying btw]. Fortunately I bought the thing at Best Buy and they allowed me to return a "non booting box"
Point is, Apple is just as guilty as say Dell for forcing users to use one particular OS.
I bought a ***COMPUTER*** not a MacOS box.
Tom
Re:barn door, horse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft would become two monopolies if it was broken up; Windows, and Office. (it would likely spin off a third company, call it "Microsoft Other", but that one wouldn't have any monopolies.)
My initial thought was that the individual monopolies would be more subject to attack, but I'm no longer sure that's the case. I'm sure both sides of the business have been restrained to benefit the other; Windows probably can't add anything that would compete with Office, and Office ships only on Windows and OSX. If it split up, Office would be instantly ported to Linux (they probably have a working port running already... they'd be dumb not to) and probably Solaris. Windows would start adding more Office-like features. Each product would become better than it is now.
A monolithic Microsoft is about money and power, and it's a less effective competitor because of it. A broken-up Microsoft would suddenly have itself as an indirect competitor, and that kind of an organizational shakeup would have a very good chance of refocusing them into the lean, mean, NASTY competitor of yesteryear.
Obviously this is all guesstimation, just from observing Microsoft and other large companies over the years. But if my guess is at all accurate, the open source crowd most emphatically wants Microsoft huge and evil. It's the most fertile possible ground for free software.
But if it IS broken up, the outcome isn't likely to be the same as AT&T. Microsoft would become only two monopolies, and the barriers to competition in those fields just aren't that high...nothing at all like building all that physical wire. The BEST possible outcome to leave them big, dumb, and nasty. But if they do break up, AT&T's history is probably not a good example from which to extrapolate.
Re:That's a nice sentiment and all... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as a mac user, it pains me to say this (Score:4, Insightful)
What can you not run? Where did you get the expectation that going outside the Apple Distortion Field would be a nice experience? As far as alternative operating systems go that can run on Mac Hardware, it's pretty easy to find out what will and will not run. YelloDog Linux is pretty clear.
What? Which particular OS are you forced to use? We've bought Dell's with Linux at the company I work for. As far as home use goes, I think I heard there is a FreeDOS version so you can put on whatever you wish. Regardless, Dell doesn't force you to do anything if you don't choose to purchase from them. If their selection doesn't suit you, go elsewhere.
No, you bought a MacOS box from a niche company that provides a particular experience with their software/hardware.
Re:Some fun facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Using this logic a drug dealer could claim an "obligation" to traffic drugs since if the risk of getting caught was outweighed by the potential profits from selling dope. Similarly, if an athlete thought steroids could increase his chances of winning and the chance of getting caught was small, he could argue an "obligation" to use performance enhancing drugs.
While the MAIN function of a business is to make money, making money does not absolve a corporation from all moral obligations. There's still a little something called "Business Ethics", and to me it's sad that people like you could actually think it doesn't exist.
It doesn't work for most (Score:4, Insightful)
I like Linux, but here's the problem for most consumers:
1) iTunes doesn't work. Please spare me the whine about how there are alternatives. Nobody cares about them. iTunes has to work.
2) OpenOffice 2.0 is okay, although you'll have to twist some arms.
3) All those cool utilities that come with people's camera won't work.
4) Most printer drivers for those inexpensive new printers won't work.
5) No consumer level photo editing software. And if you say "gimp", I'm going to drive to your house and poke you in the eye
6) None of the millions of little special interest applications won't work.
If all you're doing is browsing the web and writing letters, Linux is fine. But if you have an iPod, or use a digital camera/movie player, you're screwed.
Sorry, but the bar moved for Linux. Office is no longer the hurdle for adoption.
Re:Speaking as a mac user, it pains me to say this (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, you didn't buy an x86 system so theres a lot of stuff you're not going to be able to run on it. Apple is foucused on providing a unique user experience so their system is obviously going to run different than a Dell box would.
Re:You do not understand the term 'monopoly'. (Score:3, Insightful)
The court held that Microsoft held a monopoly on x86 computer desktop operating systems. Apple was explicitely excluded from the market chosen for the DOJ lawsuit.
If your market is simply "desktop computer operating systems", then the court did not rule that Microsoft held a monopoly in that area.
The best thing that ever happened to Microsoft in the anti-trust department was Apple's decision to switch to Intel hardware.
Re:Some fun facts (Score:2, Insightful)
The size of the fine has to be greater than the size of the reward to mean anything.