Micosoft in legal case - shock

[kingandy]

Guh.

Microsoft is accused of "abusing its dominant market position" by bundling Windows Media Player with the OS.  Their defence?

Linda Averett of Microsoft told the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg on Friday that many websites and software products would not work without the Windows Media Player.

She said that without the player, customers who buy computers with Windows "are very likely to feel deceived when they find that websites don't work".

Yeah.  No shit.  Well maybe you shouldn't be encouraging people to build websites that are wholly reliant on your software then, eh?  That's abuse of your market position, right there.

Comments

[kermix.livejournal.com]

From a different angle: Isn't this the sort of thing that a web browser is supposed to be able to detect, and be all like, "hey, go install Windows Media Player"?

She makes it sound like the only alternative is to put up a cryptic message that says "Hi, this website doesn't work."

[kingandy]

I would hazard a guess that she's talking about browsing with Internet Explorer, which may operate under the assumption...

But, yeah.

[kermix.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Internet Explorer, which is bundled with Windows, and likely operates under the assumption that it can download and install any Microsoft components it damn well pleases.

That just makes her statement even more bunk.

[gowhonker.livejournal.com]

But you get those Microsoft components for free!

Adjust your settings if it enrages you. Really, it's not like Bill Gates is putting a gun to your heads.

If you want to get annoyed at gross injustice and abuse of human rights, get involved in amnesty international.

[gowhonker.livejournal.com]

Yeah, i've just read the article - to me, it reads as "We, Real Networks, want people to buy our player. However, Microsoft give a functional and versatile player away free with Windows. We want the consumer to pay money for an operating system, and then pay more money for a player. As an extension of this, we want the consumer to install additional components which, the court has ruled, will not be 100% compatible with Microsoft's O/S. But we don't care, because we want money."

Admittedly, i've read between the lines, but as a consumer, i feel that there is sufficient choice in the market, and i enjoy having an O/S that gives me internet access, player, compatability with 99% of games on the market and additional bells and whistles which i don't actually care about.

[kermix.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm not so much trying to express an opinion as to point out flawed logic in the woman's statement (as much of it as I see here, anyway). She argues that without WMP, people will think websites are "broken", but anyone who is likely to think that would probably be using IE (since it's included with Windows), and I see no reason for them to think that.

Believe me, I've seen the Microsoft lawsuit drama play out many times; it's about as pointless as the next U.S. election.

Oops! Did I say that? ^^;

[gowhonker.livejournal.com]

Most people are not computer informed. If they buy Windows that does include IE but does not include WMP then they will have problems with websites, and unless windows informs them they need additional components, then they will think the site is broken.

Plus it's frustrating, have to download something new every time you want to look at porn.

[stsquad.livejournal.com]

Indeed. They invent these things called standards for a reason. You should read about the BBC and the problems they came across when deciding which streaming video format to use. It was one of the reasons they started the Dirac project.

Luckily now I can play Windows Media, Quicktime and the rest with one open-source plugin under firefox. There are still sites around that won't even try and give up if you haven't got IE!

[mrssshhh.livejournal.com]

philoko used to work for BBC new media. He knows all about the RealPlayer streaming bollocks that the BBC has had to put up with from RM.

[gowhonker.livejournal.com]

Personally i think Microsoft should move to Cuba.

Really, who gives a fuck, when most people get Windows for free?

I was puzzled when people got irate about IE being packaged with windows. If you're going to get a different browser, get a different browser. The choice is still there.

[stsquad.livejournal.com]

"when most people get Windows for free?"

Not really its just included in the cost of the computer. Maybe Neil knows how much the OEM cost of Windows is but I bet it takes all sorts of jumping through hoops to get a complete system without an OS.

I hold now brief for Real Media, I have the same suspicions of their proprietary code as I do of Microsoft. However I do believe you need to keep a close eye on monopolies especially ones with the track record Microsoft has. They don't give away WMP because they like their customers, the do it so they control the market in streaming media. You may not pay to watch it, but someone has to pay to encode it.

[kingandy]

The problem is thusly:

Microsoft gives player away for free. Because their OS saturates the market, they can give it to everybody.
Websites and media format becomes dependent on the player ("Website no worky").
Since everybody is now using the player and nothing will work without it, Microsoft can start charging for the player.

It's called a "Monopoly", which is not only bad for competing businesses, but also for the consumer.

And yes,

[kingandy]

... And yes, I did get Windows for free, but that's because I knows people who knows people.

[mrssshhh.livejournal.com]

Nook is exactly right - this isn't someone standing up to Microsoft and saying "you're stopping people from making a choice!", it's about RealMedia wanting a larger market share for their quite honestly inferior product.

Me? I encourage people to use Media Player; it, along with DirectX, are probably the two best products MS have ever produced, and they're both free. Personally I use Winamp as a player, but I use Media Player to encode music as I find WMA to be the best format for most of my useage.

The 'internet use' defence isn't the best ever, but you have to realise that RM are trying to fuck them on technicalities, so they have to fight back with technicalities.

WMA

[stsquad.livejournal.com]

I would disagree, WMA has many classic MS problems, but the most important being you are beholden to MS to access your files, they decide if your allowed to access or distribute them.

You should be suspicious of entrusting your data to any undocumented or legally encumbered format.

Re: WMA

[mrssshhh.livejournal.com]

Hmm. No. Should you decide to encode your own WMA files, and don't have DRM turned on (off is default) then you can do whatever you like with your WMAs. I happily use mine on at least four different PCs and 3 mobile MP3/WMA players.

If you choose to activate DRM, or download DRM'ed files, then yes, you're limited, but no more than you are with I-Tunes' MP3s.

Re: WMA

[stsquad.livejournal.com]

"and don't have DRM turned on (off is default)"

The question is how long you get the choice? At the end of the day Microsoft can turn around and say no, you can't access that file with anything but their software (because the format is undocumented or protected by patents) and they enforce mandatory DRM.

But its ok, you can trust your data to Microsoft if you want to, its your choice ;-)

Re: WMA

[mrssshhh.livejournal.com]

Anything I've already ripped is safe - it lives on burned disks as well as the hard disks of the PCs. Should MS change their mind in future and enforce DRM, then i'll find a different format. Until then, I'm fine with WMAs.