- Related Stories
-
EU: We could fine Microsoft into submission
January 28, 2005 -
Microsoft won't fight EU ruling--for now
January 24, 2005 -
Microsoft readies scaled-back Windows
December 22, 2004 -
EU slaps record fine on Microsoft
March 24, 2004
Microsoft announced last month that it intended to use the name "Windows XP Reduced Media Edition" for the program, which has, by order of the European Commission, been stripped of the Media Player that's usually included.
The Commission was concerned that the name would undermine its order by turning consumers off to the new version of Windows and prompting them to stay with the current version, according to reports. So Microsoft is ditching the name and is now busy coming up with a new one, Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said Friday.
"The Commission has requested that we change the name from the original suggestion," Drake said. "While we believe this name complies (with the commission's orders), we have agreed to make the change. We're working together with the commission to come up with an alternative name."
A representative for the Commission was not immediately available to comment. Recently, however, a Commission representative had threatened further fines if Microsoft did anything to make the new product unattractive, according to several news reports published Friday.
The uninspired name was likely a reflection of Microsoft's feeling about the new product, which the Commission ordered it to release last year as part of the antitrust sanctions it imposed after finding Microsoft guilty of abusive business practices. The Commission also fined the company $648 million.
In addition to lacking a copy of Windows Media Player, the new version of Windows won't be able to do things such as play a CD or MP3 file or transfer music to a portable device--at least not without additional software from another company.
"Given the complexity of implementing the remedies, it's not surprising that there will be issues and questions that go along with the process," Drake said. "Microsoft remains fully committed to implementing the Commission's decision and working with them toward that goal."
Nevertheless, Drake defended the company's original name choice, saying it would have accurately conveyed the difference between the two products. Microsoft is working with its partners to release the new program next month, as scheduled, and has already shipped it to some computer makers in Europe, she added.
Microsoft plans to sell the new product in Europe only and charge the same price that the fuller-featured version fetches there. The company also plans to appeal the Commission's ruling but recently decided not to fight a court order requiring immediate compliance with sanctions, after losing a bid to delay them.
CNET News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this report.
See more CNET content tagged:
commission, antitrust, Europe, Microsoft Windows Media Player, order
Um, it's the commission that wanted WMP out of the OS, so the wanted *exactly* a "Reduced Media" version.
Make the OS more unattractive, and the best description of that OS would be less attractive.
While I know some people (not many) that prefer Real or other media players to WMP, I don't know a single one that wouldn't take the verion that at least included WMP. Media player vendors are going to have to shell out big cash to convince an OEM to put on this version of Windows. Hope it's worth it to them.
This situation is _MS's fault_ my friend. THEY are the ones who
are convicted. THEY are the ones people should be mad about
for any inconveniences consumers/OEMs/vendors suffer due to
_Microsoft's_ illegal and anticompetitive practices.
Get it??
other player. I dont know anybody who uses it"
Doesn't take anything away??, Nobody uses WMP?? REALLY??
I cannot believe you believe that.
WAKE UP. You have no idea what you are saying.
You do understand that Microsoft's Windows has a monopoly
correct? One of the ways MS has created the monopoly is by
using DEFAULT programs, such as IE - instead of Netscape -
and Windows Media Player - instead of Real or QuickTime - as
just a couple of examples. By using a "preemptive" strategy by
using default settings. These bundled app.s that come with a
Monopoly OS in effect cut off competition. Average users (90%)
use their DEFAULTs. Microsoft is well aware of this - that is
exactly thier strategy! It becomes _illegal_ if you are in a
Monopoly position.
The court is saying the ubiquity of the OS - it's monoploy
position - cuts competition as a result of using defaults and
bundling. WMP is the default so most people don't use
competing software, whether or not it is better!
The EU is right on this. You are wrong. The US DOJ caved on the
remedy.
Window is an OS.
Media player is a separate product.
IE is a separate product.
office is a separate product.
When you bundle products togeather and say it's "part of the OS" the consumer becomes afraid to change things. The fear loosing suport for their system. They fear messing things up so nothing works.
I've supprted home users for many years now (14+) and the recurring theme ever since the bundling started is "Will X break my system?" replace x with netscape, mozilla, eudora, winamp, etc.
This is literally a forced feeding.
If MS sold a barebones windows, the cost for that product would be SIGNIFICANTLY lower since it doesn't include the cost of writing IE, outlook, wordpad, antivirus, etc, etc, etc. The core system makes up a small portion of the total cost.
To rephrase WHY the EU is forcing this: By bundling applications with the OS Microsoft is forcing consumers to pay for things that they will not use.
This would be like being forced to pay extra for leather, dolby digital stereo, 180mph tires, and a turbocharger on a dinky econobox that can't really make use of them. Do you REALLY need all that stuff when you just need the basic car? What if the basic car is all you can afford? What do you do then? Get trained on how to drive a mac truck because some company down the road is giving them away? End result, it's the cost. MS has driven up the cost with it's tying of products to the OS.
It's all about protecting YOUR rights to pay for what you are going to need and use.
If you still don't understand why the EU is doing this... well, let's just say I hold no hope for you becoming an educated consumer.
the names of some other features:
* Plug-and-maybe-will-play-or-crash
* Security leakage Centre
* Not-so-intelligent-"unknown device"-assistant
* Forced Windows pop-ups with unhelpful information
* Visual Insecure Basic
* Guaranteed monthly leaks so our monthly security patches will
be useful.
And the "XP Home Edition" should be renamed "XP Clipped
Edition"
By the way, why does the WMP-less version cost the same as the
bloated version? I'd like to get a discount for not having that
extra program.
I suggest plugging the PC into the socket. Give it a try. Let us know how you got on.
name.
An accurate name like "Reduced Media Edition" will not disuade anyone that wanted that version of Windows to get it. If an OEM installs another media player on this OS (not likely that any will ship this OS) they will tout that media player.
It is literally, and very specifically, the correct name for the product. Unless you want to call it "Non-media Capable Edition", since it can't play audio or video media. People that consider graphic files in the bin "media" would be upset, since it *can* display them. Most people refer only to audio and video these days, though.
Customer "What does the Open Media Edition mean?"
Salesman "It doesn't come with a media player, but you can buy real player to add to it."
Customer "What about the normal version? How much does it cost?"
Salesman "Umm, the same price."
Customer "Oh, in that case I want the full version."
Yeah, this is gonna work.
All Linux/Mac/MS choices aside; we all realize that this a pretty bold fine (personally I would pull out of the European market altogether and take my fiscal loss rather than be raped of 750 million dollars to a money hungry EU). I do not remember being offered only QuickTime and iTunes via Apple. Several Linux distos. offered only one media player by default, with no lawsuits in sight I would see this as being a biased court decision.
I would also think that many users in the EU would be illerterate enough to not be able to install an outside version. This is the equivalent of buying a Chevy car, then filing a lawsuit because you do not have the option to put Ford seats in them out of the factory.
> then filing a lawsuit because you do not have
> the option to put Ford seats in them out of
> the factory.
It seems, though, that if Chevy should happen to become popular enough in Europe - and grab enough of a marketshare - that they'll also be sued and be forced into selling a version of their product that doesn't have any seats at all.
Gee - what an incentive to succeed.
To address the Mac / Win XP issue, I would also add that I prefer that the OS run 90% of the most popular software and that it run on a new computer that costs $500.