Xavier Méra has a piece up at Institut économique Molinari about the continuing and seemingly never-ending EU vendetta against Microsoft.
Concluding paragraphs:
That is not all. EU spokesman Antonia Mochan observed that the Media Player affair went “beyond the question of its name,” which has now been settled. Indeed, Microsoft’s rivals complain that the reduced version of Windows is not totally compatible with their programs. The EU’s competition department has stated that tests are under way, and an EU source wishing to remain anonymous confirmed the plaintiffs’ complaints about compatibility. It is perhaps this aspect, the least widely reported in the Media Player affair, which reveals the most about the validity of the charges made against the IT giant. In fact, if the commission ends up denouncing this state of affairs, it will once again be contradicting grievances it has put forward about Microsoft.
The point of the penalty is that the integrated version of Media Player allegedly damages competitors. Withdrawing it should therefore benefit them. If this is not the case, as they say and as the commission spokesperson suggests, that means these rival software writers are in reality third-party beneficiaries of the Windows Media Player system. It cannot be argued in the same breath that Microsoft both hurts and helps its competitors with the same product. It follows then that we cannot criticize Microsoft both for putting forward a Windows “N” that is “flawed” because it doesn’t contain specific Media Player files, and for being an “unfair” competitor with its complete version.
In a trial where logic has not been taken seriously, arbitrary judgement has played a more significant role than reason and experience. As the accusation continues down the same path, the Microsoft case is coming to look more and more like a witch-hunt.
Well, it sounds to me more like that Microsoft, having been ordered to do business differently from the utterly reasonable and beneficial-to-all-except-rivals way that it wants to, may have introduced a little minor self-inflicted sabotage, Atlas Shrugged style, in order to make the EU regulators feel like the prats that they are.
Either that, or they are maybe indulging in that alternative version of sabotage that consists of doing everything you are told and nothing else, which always causes havoc. Few things ruin complicated technological systems more quickly and more completely than pure obedience. Okay, if that is what you bastards say you want, that is what you will get . . .
And I say that they have a perfect right to do all of that. I have always thought that bitching about Microsoft including Media Player in Windows is about as sane as complaining about a car company including hub caps on its cars, on the grounds that this discriminates against disappointed hub cap suppliers. Which it sort of does, but so bloody what?
By the way, the first version of this posting that I stuck up was entitled, in error: “The EU versus the EU (again)”. (I decided to change it from “Microsoft versus the EU” to “The EU versus Microsoft”, but only got half way.) But maybe this was not such an error. Self destruction is what the EU often seems to be all about.
Politically speaking, we need a better poster-child for governmental abuse than Microsoft, a company that in spite of being the victim of much governmental meddling (in the EU and the US) is still doing big business with governments of the world. Microsoft is a company committed to mixed-economics and State meddling, and as far as this goes, they got some of their own medicine. It’s unfair nevertheless.
Microsoft reached it’s position thru the practice of illegal and monoplolistic trading practices. Microsoft is doing exactly what Standard Oil did, only Gates gets away with it thru the time honored method of buying the Judge. Eventually the EU will, like a cat with a hairball, cough up a judge that Bill can buy. Then the problem will go away. Got to admire Bill’s confidence though. Naming your corporation after your dick shows a certain ‘elan. Or is that el’an? Meanwhile anybody rational runs Linux, with Windows as a sub-program.
A shakedown is still a shakedown.
Stehpinkeln writes:
Microsoft reached it’s (sic) position thru the practice of illegal and monoplolistic trading practices… Meanwhile anybody rational runs Linux, with Windows as a sub-program.
Wait a second, you mean there’s a choice of operating system? What about the Microsoft ‘monopoly’?
Oh, not all Lunix users are that rational, I believe we have our share of script kiddies and loons, as does any OS. It also seems some rational people run *BSD, or other stuff. But yeah, I wouldn’t want win as my main OS.
Also funny (yet sad) is the EU software patent struggle. “Boo MS, yay patents!” I remember reading that they managed to scare some German towns away from using Linux for fear of patent problems later on.
Also, ooh, I just noticed. Push-buttons seem to work nicely for me (Linux/Opera).
I’m not sure what’s going on here. But I think the EU want the windows media codecs to be distributed with windows without the windows media UI. If this is true, then distributing the codecs with windows won’t be a complete solution from the EU’s perspective because the windows codecs will still have a foot in the door compared to competing codecs.
“Meanwhile anybody rational runs Linux, with Windows as a sub-program.”
You know, unless they’re rational gamers (Windows), rational graphical designers (Apple) or rational casual computer users (windows).
Either the majority of computer users are irrational, or your statement is. Hating Bill Gates and worshipping Linux is charming when you’re learning perl in your parent’s basement, but it’s time to grow up.
“Wait a second, you mean there’s a choice of operating system? What about the Microsoft ‘monopoly’?”
You’re going to hurt his head. 🙂 Microsoft is the only company in the world that can magically maintain a monopoly in the face of freely downloaded competitors for nearly all of their products.
Somehow I think Standard Oil would’ve been left off the hook if you could’ve downloaded an oil derrick into your backyard… for free…. in 30 seconds…. using Standard’s very own products.
During the Clinton administration in the US, Microsoft’s unwillingness to donate to the Democratic National Committee brought the full wrath of the US Dept. of Justice upon it.
Now that Clinton is [thankfully] gone, the full faith and credit of the US is no longer harassing MS. No use killing the golden goose which hires so many people, pays corporate taxes, and sells products that people want.
Maybe MS’s problem with the EU is that MS is not “donating” to the proper authorities.
“Either that, or they are maybe indulging in that alternative version of sabotage that consists of doing everything you are told and nothing else, which always causes havoc. Few things ruin complicated technological systems more quickly and more completely than pure obedience.”
Bill Gates as the Good Soldier Svejk…there’s a bonejarringly odd image.
“But I think the EU want the windows media codecs to be distributed with windows without the windows media UI”
I’d be surprised if the EU bearucrats behind this would be able to make heads or tales of this sentence.
I truly LOVE “malicious obedience” when it comes to government thugs…
Actually, as a Mac user, I am kind of torn. On the one hand, I would love to see MS broken into a million pieces. Some competition would, after the dust settles, ensure that we have operating systems that work like they are supposed to. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of taking out a business that has been successful without more proof of illegal practices.
Actually, as a Mac user, I am kind of torn. On the one hand, I would love to see MS broken into a million pieces. Some competition would, after the dust settles, ensure that we have operating systems that work like they are supposed to. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of taking out a business that has been successful without more proof of illegal practices.
“Actually, as a Mac user…”
Why then do you care then what happens to MS? You don’t like its OS.. so you use Apple’s. The market worked just as it should… you didn’t like one product so you bought its competitor. Why would the breakup of MS be beneficial? Would you stop using Mac?
The answer to the second question is: perhaps. Unlike most of my fellow mac users, I am not married to my computer. For now, I consider Apple to be the best choice. If there ever comes a Windows-based computer that is better, I’ll consider switching back. Competition would make this more likely.
Now back to the first question. Right now one of the biggest headaches for Mac users is the lack of easily available software titles. If I want to buy something for a PC, I go to Walmart, KMart, Target, etc, and just buy what I want. For a Mac, I have to 1) see if a version is available, 2) order out of a catalog without being able to actually see what it is I am buying, and then 3) wait for it to be mailed to me.
The reason for this is Apple’s market share for, or rather, the lack thereof. A software developer can write a program for windows and cover 90- 95 % of the market. The 5% that Apple owns is not always seen as being worth the effort. If you have multiple Operating systems out there, with none of them having a clear dominance, software makers have more reason to write for OS’s with smaller market shares, thus lowering the threshold Mac needs to get software written in a timely manner.
Chet, now we know you’re pulling our collective leg here. It is a well known fact that not only are Mac owners married to their machines, but that they constitute a dangerous, well-disciplined and fanatically loyal cult. It always surprises me that Mac owners do not haunt airports like the Hare Krishnas, hurling jeremiads at the passersby on the evil of Microsoft and denouncing Bill Gates as the avatar of the baddest karma in the universe while forcing Macs on the unsuspecting travelling public whose only wish in life is to catch the 5:40 flight to Cleveland
Ssshhh! Don’t tell my wife that I am not really married to her. 🙂
To assume that the EU is always wrong is rather naive. Malign as the EU undoubtedly is, Microsoft is no better.
Microsoft is not a monopoly, but they don’t need to be to exercise monopolistic power. 90% plus of the market is quite enough to let them gain most of the benefits a monopoly can bring, at the customer’s expense.
In this particular case, the analogy with cars is flawed.
Microsoft do not make computers. They are not analogous to the car maker, but to the hub-cab suppliers. It’s as if Sony sold a car radio that wouldn’t work unless you had Sony-approved tires – difficult to arrange with cars, perfectly straightforwards with computers.
Surely the computer makers should be able to choose what software they install on the computers they make, not Microsoft.
Microsoft do not make computers. They are not analogous to the car maker, but to the hub-cab suppliers. It’s as if Sony sold a car radio that wouldn’t work unless you had Sony-approved tires – difficult to arrange with cars, perfectly straightforwards with computers.
If Sony sold such a radio and 90% of the users decided to buy it anyway, it would (evidently) be a pretty damn good radio. Or did I miss the “gun-toting thugs forcing the hapless consumers to pony up to the counter and empty their wallets” portion of your scenario?
Surely the computer makers should be able to choose what software they install on the computers they make, not Microsoft.
Every computer maker in the world is perfectly free to install whatever OS they want on their computers … just as Microsoft is free to offer bulk software discounts to OEMs who decide to sell Windows products. Note that Windows at a 50% discount is still far more expensive than Linux. So why don’t all the OEMs just ditch Windows and sell Linux exclusively … hmm, I am sure there is some reason for this irrational behaviour on their part, something to do with revealed consumer preferences or something …
akaky—great visual picture. Given my level of computer sophistication, its the only part of the thread I understood.
M$ is not only no monopoly, but they’ve shown why no tech company can ever be a monopolist. They lost their ability to define at a whim the industry standard when the internet got big and computers needed to interoperate. That’s because (as in diplomacy) the only way to work well with total strangers is through shared protocol – and the only protocols you can guarantee a stranger will know are public (as versus exclusive) and traditional. In tech, that means that settled public-domain standards will always displace or assimilate a monopoly. Hence the legal “antitrust” or whatever is simply redundant.
(The next standard to hit them will be OASIS Open Document. That’s going to displace M$ Office’s proprietary document formats, and destroy the Office monopoly. Count on it.)
Is it just me that finds winderz media player useless? Whenever i try and play a media clip, media player reports back to it’s evil boss and farts around downloading a codec. Then it complains that it can’t play the file for one of a number of reasons. It reminds me of the Nutri-Matic in that respect.
VLC is the dog’s genitals for media playback.
Mind you, M$ EvilMediaPlayer is still superior to Realplayer. And Quicktime I don’t like either.
zmollusc: which player do you use?
I (don’t) use mediaplayer 6. If you are going to suggest that upgrading will fix my problems then I should point out that i have been trying that route since dos 3.3 and my problems have not been fixed yet.
🙂
“…rational graphical designers (Apple)…”
***honk***
By 1991, already, I was telling Apple-dopes to go soak their fucking heads whenever they handed me that attitude, the punks. I would deliver imagery to output bureaus, generated from AutoCAD geometry and rendered in 3D Studio, and they would stare. “You mean you really did that on a PC??”
Idiots. Christ, how I hated them, and I still do.
Defenders of Microsoft misidentify the victims. It’s not the customer who spends $120 for Windows XP. It’s the small Independent Software Vendor (ISV) who spends $5000 a year on universal MSDN subscriptions in order to program for the Win32 API.
Microsoft sells products to programmers in order to access its supposedly publicly documented API. For many years it publicly represented to said customers that they have a level playing field and its own applications programmers do not have a leg up.
Microsoft lied. It lied repeatedly in a strategic way that tilted the OS playing field for approaching a decade and raked in a huge amount of money based on the network effects of that lie. The proof is that they did an orwellian about face and now deny that they ever made such representations. They did lie and I remember. A lot of computer professionals do. There’s precious little money in bringing that history up so most stay quiet and just look for opportunities to extract a small measure of justice by kneecapping MS where possible.
MS is engaging in the same sort of lying today. It includes player application technology in its OS platform and discriminates against its OS development tool customers by denying them a level playing field. That’s the essence of the current EU contretemps, properly understood.
Not necessarily. Why this assumption that because a product is successful it must necessarily be good? This means that economic success is seen as an end in itself, which could be questioned. Just because people buy something doesn’t mean it’s actually any good.
Supposing 90% of people bought the Sony radio because it was the only one readily available that actually worked half-way acceptably. Then suppose that the speakers and large parts of the radio broadcast system only worked with Sony radios. Then suppose alternatives that were technically superior to Sony’s came along due in large part to Sony popularising radio – but Sony made sure that the speakers and broadcast system wouldn’t work very well (or at all) with the rivals. That’s a closer approximation to the way Microsoft works.
EG
Actually, I have had very little trouble using most third party software on windows, especially in the media player department. I have iTunes, RealPlayer, Quicktime player and a couple others that all work perfectly well and practically installed themselves on my machine.
Supposing 90% of people bought the Sony radio because it was the only one readily available that actually worked half-way acceptably.
Wouldn’t that would make it the best radio on the market?
Then suppose that the speakers and large parts of the radio broadcast system only worked with Sony radios. Then suppose alternatives that were technically superior to Sony’s came along due in large part to Sony popularising radio – but Sony made sure that the speakers and broadcast system wouldn’t work very well (or at all) with the rivals. That’s a closer approximation to the way Microsoft works.
That’s odd … I have never in my life owned a PC that could not run Linux (and I have owned about 15 of them over the years – I currently have 6 of various ages running at home, and another 3 at work).
Microsoft makes an OS, along with some software to run on that OS. There are many other operating systems available, and some of them are free. There is a lot of competing software available for almost everything Microsoft makes, and a lot of it is free. Example: I agree that VLC is the “dog’s genitals” … it allows you to play DVDs without purchasing a decoder, and it handles almost every media format imaginable. It runs just fine on Windows, and it is as easy to install as it could possibly be.
There is almost nothing in Windows that can’t be easily replaced by third-party software, if you like it better. That’s some ferocious monoploy they have there …