Four major PC makers have no plans to sell the media-player-free version of Windows, which Microsoft was ordered to offer by Europe's competition commissioner.
Microsoft will make an updated version of Window XP N available on Wednesday, but none of the computer manufacturers that ZDNet UK spoke to are considering preinstalling it on desktops or laptops.
Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo and Fujitsu Siemens all said they have no firm plans to install Windows XP N, citing a lack of customer demand. A Dell representative added Tuesday that customers expect to have a media player included.
"Dell will continue to offer European customers Microsoft's Windows operating systems including the Windows Media Player utility on Dimension desktops and Inspiron notebooks," the representative said.
"Customers purchase computers expecting them to come equipped with the capability of playing back digital media files, and it's our obligation to meet this need. (Windows XP N will) not (be offered) at this time. We'll monitor the market to see if XP N is in high demand."
"At this time, HP has no plans to support Windows XP Professional Edition N on commercial notebooks in 2005," said an HP representative.
A Lenovo representative said: "At present we have no plans to preinstall Windows XP N on desktops and laptops. We will continue to monitor customer demand going forward."
The only company that conceded it may preinstall Windows XP N was Fujitsu Siemens, which said it would do so on request. "We will not preinstall as standard," said a Fujitsu Siemens representative. "It will only be on special requests, and we have had no such request from any of our customers to date."
Acer, another PC manufacturer, has been unable to provide a comment on this issue during the past week.
The lack of interest from computer manufacturers for Windows XP N raises questions over the effectiveness of the EU's antitrust ruling, particularly the fact that Microsoft has been allowed to offer Windows XP N for the same price as the standard version of Windows XP.
A European Commission representative was reluctant to comment on the issue. "Given that Windows XP N has not even been shipped yet, it is too early to start drawing conclusions," he said.
Microsoft said it bears no responsibility for making PC manufacturers use Windows XP N.
"Microsoft has made these products available through its standard distribution channels," a company representative said. "Whether or not customers or distributors offer this product in Europe is a decision for individual computer manufacturers, enterprise customers and retailers."
One of Microsoft's rivals in the media player market, RealNetworks, criticized Microsoft earlier this year for failing to provide a fully functional version of Windows that is unbundled from Windows Media Player.
RealNetworks declined to comment on the updated version of Windows XP N.
Typical EU BS. There was no reason in the first place to remove WMP. If you dont like WMP, use iTunes or winamp or one of the other million media players out there..Complete idiots...Totally..Knowone is going to buy this...all that time fighting MS over this deal is just plain greed...Nothing more.
I agree with your "cash grab" analysis. However, as William Squire points out, the real loser here (other than Microsoft and its customers) is Real. Real wanted Media Player removed so that they could wedge their own media play in its place. However, they have completely failed to provide any PC manufacturer with any incentive to carry the new version of Windows along with Real Player.
FFS. People complain that Microsoft bundles applications with their OS which squashes the competitors. The EU takes action and takes a first step then people say it was just a cash grab.
What do you want people? Either unbundling of apps or let MS do what they want. You can't have it both ways.
What would you have suggested the EU do?
Of course I think the Windows XP N is not going to sell. You get all the Open Source and linux geeks whining that people don't use their OS when it's free. All they can do is kick up enough stink so that stuff like this happens. But the majority use Windows because it's good enough. I use Media Player because it's good enough. Real and others can complain all they want.
Forcing a software developer to strip out features in an operating system is akin to asking a video game developer to strip out a feature of a game. It's so ridiculous of the **** that Microsoft gets about being a monopoly. Any software developer has a right to integrate a ham sandwich into their application if they want to. Screw the EU.
So how would the EU cash in on this? Collect taxes on downloads of WMP? The Eu has its good reasons; try to give other mediaplayers a fair chance. Of course you could download another player if you want to. (wmp finally is one of the better players, so personally I see no need) But it's really cumbersome to get an idea of what player is good, which isn't and then download and install it. Most people use WMP not because it's their first choice, but because it's the easiest solution. Too lazy or dumb to download another player. Compare with Internet Explorer; IE was never the best browser but it beat the leading browser (netscape) because it came pre-installed with the OS. So the EU would like to see that other, possibly better software gets a chance too. It's tricky and debatable, but this is a rule in Europe; you want to be on the European market?Good, then play with European rules. Foreign products have to be adapted to the US market,foreign firms have to adhere to US rules too. Time for the US to acknowledge other countries rules, even if it is "a disadvantage".
Typical EU BS. There was no reason in the first place to remove WMP. If you dont like WMP, use iTunes or winamp or one of the other million media players out there..Complete idiots...Totally..Knowone is going to buy this...all that time fighting MS over this deal is just plain greed...Nothing more.
I agree with your "cash grab" analysis. However, as William Squire points out, the real loser here (other than Microsoft and its customers) is Real. Real wanted Media Player removed so that they could wedge their own media play in its place. However, they have completely failed to provide any PC manufacturer with any incentive to carry the new version of Windows along with Real Player.
FFS. People complain that Microsoft bundles applications with their OS which squashes the competitors. The EU takes action and takes a first step then people say it was just a cash grab.
What do you want people? Either unbundling of apps or let MS do what they want. You can't have it both ways.
What would you have suggested the EU do?
Of course I think the Windows XP N is not going to sell. You get all the Open Source and linux geeks whining that people don't use their OS when it's free. All they can do is kick up enough stink so that stuff like this happens. But the majority use Windows because it's good enough. I use Media Player because it's good enough. Real and others can complain all they want.
Forcing a software developer to strip out features in an operating system is akin to asking a video game developer to strip out a feature of a game. It's so ridiculous of the **** that Microsoft gets about being a monopoly. Any software developer has a right to integrate a ham sandwich into their application if they want to. Screw the EU.
So how would the EU cash in on this? Collect taxes on downloads of WMP? The Eu has its good reasons; try to give other mediaplayers a fair chance. Of course you could download another player if you want to. (wmp finally is one of the better players, so personally I see no need) But it's really cumbersome to get an idea of what player is good, which isn't and then download and install it. Most people use WMP not because it's their first choice, but because it's the easiest solution. Too lazy or dumb to download another player. Compare with Internet Explorer; IE was never the best browser but it beat the leading browser (netscape) because it came pre-installed with the OS. So the EU would like to see that other, possibly better software gets a chance too. It's tricky and debatable, but this is a rule in Europe; you want to be on the European market?Good, then play with European rules. Foreign products have to be adapted to the US market,foreign firms have to adhere to US rules too. Time for the US to acknowledge other countries rules, even if it is "a disadvantage".
WMP is a really good all in one media player. IMO the best. That's stupid for PC makers to use XP N because PC newbies don't know the difference between media players. PC makers would just be making it harder on themselves to offer XP N preinstalled.
WMP is a really good all in one media player. IMO the best. That's stupid for PC makers to use XP N because PC newbies don't know the difference between media players. PC makers would just be making it harder on themselves to offer XP N preinstalled.
... to have MS provide just a high quality OS, complete and capable of being a truly superb OS for the PC. Then MS could provide all the independant supporting apps they liked to run with the OS. And the user could chose now or later to install or uninstall those apps, as the user sees fit.
And maybe MS could use the same basic approach with it's big scale applications, too. A core Office Suite, with lots of supporting power functions to be added or removed as the user chooses
Then the EU would have no complaints. Security would be so much better, and MS would have products it and the users could really be be proud of.
... to have MS provide just a high quality OS, complete and capable of being a truly superb OS for the PC. Then MS could provide all the independant supporting apps they liked to run with the OS. And the user could chose now or later to install or uninstall those apps, as the user sees fit.
And maybe MS could use the same basic approach with it's big scale applications, too. A core Office Suite, with lots of supporting power functions to be added or removed as the user chooses
Then the EU would have no complaints. Security would be so much better, and MS would have products it and the users could really be be proud of.
There was any real competition for Windows Media player. Real is a joke, Winamp is bloated, and Itunes is extremely DMR/propriety restricted.
I rip/burn, and keep track of all my music with WMP 10. Very useful and to the point program, plus I can control my music from the start menu when minimized (big plus).
The problem is not its quality or even MS having a media player.
The problem is that if you buy windows, you have to install it. The problem is that it is a part of the OS, and not a seperate app, like it should be.
IE, WMP, messenger, OE, ect, should be standalone apps, that are not required to be installed. When was the last time you had the option of picking between IE, Firefox or Opera at the time you installed windows? Never? That attitude is why MS constantly gets sued and has paid out billions in damages over the past 10 years or so.
MS would be in a stronger position today, and more then a handful of morons might like them if they played by rules.
Microsoft is doing a very wrong thing by not allowing you to choose what you want when you install yourself, and also not offering the option of other products on install.
When installing linux in my experience (not much, redhat 9) there were a multi-tude of GUI, and programs that you could choose to install or not. Windows should be that way, you should be able to choose between IE, Firefox, and Opera etc. on install, or all of them. Choice is good.
There was any real competition for Windows Media player. Real is a joke, Winamp is bloated, and Itunes is extremely DMR/propriety restricted.
I rip/burn, and keep track of all my music with WMP 10. Very useful and to the point program, plus I can control my music from the start menu when minimized (big plus).
The problem is not its quality or even MS having a media player.
The problem is that if you buy windows, you have to install it. The problem is that it is a part of the OS, and not a seperate app, like it should be.
IE, WMP, messenger, OE, ect, should be standalone apps, that are not required to be installed. When was the last time you had the option of picking between IE, Firefox or Opera at the time you installed windows? Never? That attitude is why MS constantly gets sued and has paid out billions in damages over the past 10 years or so.
MS would be in a stronger position today, and more then a handful of morons might like them if they played by rules.
Microsoft is doing a very wrong thing by not allowing you to choose what you want when you install yourself, and also not offering the option of other products on install.
When installing linux in my experience (not much, redhat 9) there were a multi-tude of GUI, and programs that you could choose to install or not. Windows should be that way, you should be able to choose between IE, Firefox, and Opera etc. on install, or all of them. Choice is good.
MS tells it's customers what they want, and that's everythig with a MS label. And to make sure that their customers get it, MS innovates ever=y app it can into the OS (This is an OS? it's more of a garbage pile)
Anyway, when was the last tiem MS gave you a choice of what you wanted on your PC?
MS tells it's customers what they want, and that's everythig with a MS label. And to make sure that their customers get it, MS innovates ever=y app it can into the OS (This is an OS? it's more of a garbage pile)
Anyway, when was the last tiem MS gave you a choice of what you wanted on your PC?
Especially when you consider what a sieve XP is with defaults set. Even with a lot of tweaks and 3rd party apps, it can't match the default levels of other OS's.
It is not so bad that MS targets people who know nothing and want to know nothing(although things like shortcuts should be technically out of reach to anyone who can turn on a computer), the problem is that MS profits by keeping them in the dark, and restricting choices. If you are going to go after the technically inept, your product damn well better be secure out of the box, and easy to use and understand.
People not only don't know how royally they are getting screwed, but act like MS is doing them a favor.
Especially when you consider what a sieve XP is with defaults set. Even with a lot of tweaks and 3rd party apps, it can't match the default levels of other OS's.
It is not so bad that MS targets people who know nothing and want to know nothing(although things like shortcuts should be technically out of reach to anyone who can turn on a computer), the problem is that MS profits by keeping them in the dark, and restricting choices. If you are going to go after the technically inept, your product damn well better be secure out of the box, and easy to use and understand.
People not only don't know how royally they are getting screwed, but act like MS is doing them a favor.
All of this was about media player companies not being able to make money on their products, not about any savings, so by restricting the OS to not have a built in media player it was the hope of the EU to make people go out and buy one (or download one...ad supported I suppose).
However there are two problems that have occurred here to completely invalidate the EU's ruling. First, WMP is still available to Windows N customers for free and second, there is no price break for buying the OS without it.
The only block competing MP companies have now is the inconvienence of downloading WMP after they've purchased the OS. Prolly as a download they'd get with the first round of security patches. So once again MS dodges the Anti-trust bullet.
All of this was about media player companies not being able to make money on their products, not about any savings, so by restricting the OS to not have a built in media player it was the hope of the EU to make people go out and buy one (or download one...ad supported I suppose).
However there are two problems that have occurred here to completely invalidate the EU's ruling. First, WMP is still available to Windows N customers for free and second, there is no price break for buying the OS without it.
The only block competing MP companies have now is the inconvienence of downloading WMP after they've purchased the OS. Prolly as a download they'd get with the first round of security patches. So once again MS dodges the Anti-trust bullet.
Just like Nokia s60 or even s40 phones destroy Moto phones-esp the RAZR
Look the average person has not the time NOR THE DESIRE to spend hours a day looking for the coolest apps, browsers, whatever. I know that Nokia s60 phones, like the bulky 6620, KILLS any Moto phone out there. But people DON'T WANT TO SPEND TIME DOING THAT(researching a browser or phone). They just want it to work.
I think the problem is that, no offense, geeks design things and assume everyone spends time like they do. If you have kids, a wife, friends, a HOT girlfriend or a job that doesn't let you play with phones or pcs all day you don't spend enough time with phones or pcs to dedicate separate time to configing this or that.
And at the end of the day, why would anyone pay for a browser, remember when Netscape was selling their browser-I do, when MS gives it for free.
Just like Nokia s60 or even s40 phones destroy Moto phones-esp the RAZR
Look the average person has not the time NOR THE DESIRE to spend hours a day looking for the coolest apps, browsers, whatever. I know that Nokia s60 phones, like the bulky 6620, KILLS any Moto phone out there. But people DON'T WANT TO SPEND TIME DOING THAT(researching a browser or phone). They just want it to work.
I think the problem is that, no offense, geeks design things and assume everyone spends time like they do. If you have kids, a wife, friends, a HOT girlfriend or a job that doesn't let you play with phones or pcs all day you don't spend enough time with phones or pcs to dedicate separate time to configing this or that.
And at the end of the day, why would anyone pay for a browser, remember when Netscape was selling their browser-I do, when MS gives it for free.
whats the first thing anyone who has half an idea dooes when they first connect thier new pc to the net.
Run windows update.
"Oh I dont have media player let me just click the box and download it."
Microsoft just managed to get real networks to spend $$$$$$$$ and hundreds or thousand of man hous. Which would have been better spent on product development. Then people like me would not load real player in its absolute minimum. BEcause we feel that there are other products that do a better job. The only reason I use realplayer is for the of web site I go to that streams real player. On websites like www.triplej.net.au that give me a choice I ALWAYS choose MS mediaplayer
MS is big enough that the leagal bill matters not and and they know that they can tie up the opositions time and effort in leagal action. When MS product developement team goes on merily developing the next version of its software.
whats the first thing anyone who has half an idea dooes when they first connect thier new pc to the net.
Run windows update.
"Oh I dont have media player let me just click the box and download it."
Microsoft just managed to get real networks to spend $$$$$$$$ and hundreds or thousand of man hous. Which would have been better spent on product development. Then people like me would not load real player in its absolute minimum. BEcause we feel that there are other products that do a better job. The only reason I use realplayer is for the of web site I go to that streams real player. On websites like www.triplej.net.au that give me a choice I ALWAYS choose MS mediaplayer
MS is big enough that the leagal bill matters not and and they know that they can tie up the opositions time and effort in leagal action. When MS product developement team goes on merily developing the next version of its software.
Here's a real boondoggle. If the consumer wants Media Player included, why was Microsoft ordered to remove it from Windows? Seem like one of the other media player companies has someone in their back pocket in Europe.
The problem with competing in the media player market is that.. well.. there is no market.
You cant get much cheaper than free nor can you pay your employees with the profits made off of free.
You can either absorb the cost of developing a media player application into your business model like Microsoft and Apple, try to turn a profit and keep your company afloat using advertising like Real (we all know how well thats going), or you can become a non-profit organization and develop open source.
Right now the only thing to compete for is market share.. which Microsoft has an unfair advantage in.
Most people would say "who cares? Its free theyre not making money off of it so what could a monopoly in media players hurt?".
Well consider for a moment what you can do if your proprietary software with a proprietary file format is installed on 90%+ of computers.. consider the licensing fees you can profit off of.. consider that you can start charging anything you want for your player since its required to play the 90% of media encoded in your proprietary format.
You can stop drooling now.
Imagine for a moment you are given a few million dollars and are instructed to create a company that sells media player software that is not only self sustaining it has to turn a profit, include all the features of WMP and not use advertising.
Could you? Is it possible in todays market?
Now do you see the problem?
As to the fact that you can install any media player you wish, hence there is no monopoly you have to consider the motivational aspect.
When you purchase a new PC and need to play a media file.. if there is a media player already installed.. why would the average person go to all the trouble of finding, downloading, installing and configuring a new media player? Unless there is something the included media player cant do that you desperately need it to there is no motivation to choose the best player at the best cost, therefore there is no free market since such decisions are integral to the healthy functioning of the economy.
Is it fair to continue letting Microsoft leverage one illegal monopoly to create another and another and another?
At the last minute the EUs ruling was changed to allow MS to completely circumvent the intention of the court and you accuse Microsofts competitors of bribing officials?
As for your statement that the consumer wants a media player pre-installed, there are two things to consider.
Firstly, when given the choice between a free player and having to pay for one.. do you think the average consumer would want to start paying for what they have been getting for free? Of course they want WMP included with windows.
Also you have to remember that since MS has been bundling it for years, they have come to expect a media player to come with the OS.
Not because it should, but because its what they're used to.
Here's a real boondoggle. If the consumer wants Media Player included, why was Microsoft ordered to remove it from Windows? Seem like one of the other media player companies has someone in their back pocket in Europe.
The problem with competing in the media player market is that.. well.. there is no market.
You cant get much cheaper than free nor can you pay your employees with the profits made off of free.
You can either absorb the cost of developing a media player application into your business model like Microsoft and Apple, try to turn a profit and keep your company afloat using advertising like Real (we all know how well thats going), or you can become a non-profit organization and develop open source.
Right now the only thing to compete for is market share.. which Microsoft has an unfair advantage in.
Most people would say "who cares? Its free theyre not making money off of it so what could a monopoly in media players hurt?".
Well consider for a moment what you can do if your proprietary software with a proprietary file format is installed on 90%+ of computers.. consider the licensing fees you can profit off of.. consider that you can start charging anything you want for your player since its required to play the 90% of media encoded in your proprietary format.
You can stop drooling now.
Imagine for a moment you are given a few million dollars and are instructed to create a company that sells media player software that is not only self sustaining it has to turn a profit, include all the features of WMP and not use advertising.
Could you? Is it possible in todays market?
Now do you see the problem?
As to the fact that you can install any media player you wish, hence there is no monopoly you have to consider the motivational aspect.
When you purchase a new PC and need to play a media file.. if there is a media player already installed.. why would the average person go to all the trouble of finding, downloading, installing and configuring a new media player? Unless there is something the included media player cant do that you desperately need it to there is no motivation to choose the best player at the best cost, therefore there is no free market since such decisions are integral to the healthy functioning of the economy.
Is it fair to continue letting Microsoft leverage one illegal monopoly to create another and another and another?
At the last minute the EUs ruling was changed to allow MS to completely circumvent the intention of the court and you accuse Microsofts competitors of bribing officials?
As for your statement that the consumer wants a media player pre-installed, there are two things to consider.
Firstly, when given the choice between a free player and having to pay for one.. do you think the average consumer would want to start paying for what they have been getting for free? Of course they want WMP included with windows.
Also you have to remember that since MS has been bundling it for years, they have come to expect a media player to come with the OS.
Not because it should, but because its what they're used to.
the biggest point is that Realplayer sucks a llamas' testicle and also asks for payment. winamp may be too minimalistic for some (but that's the reason i like it). not too many people know about media player classic. WMP, in contrast to Real (the only paid media player i can think of off the top of my head), is completely free, doesn't have annoying popups on the task bar, and can perform the same functions as Realplayer. the only reason to download Realplayer is to watch/listen to streaming .rm files. and websites like amazon are now offering alternatives when it comes to music samples, so no more need for Real.
the biggest point is that Realplayer sucks a llamas' testicle and also asks for payment. winamp may be too minimalistic for some (but that's the reason i like it). not too many people know about media player classic. WMP, in contrast to Real (the only paid media player i can think of off the top of my head), is completely free, doesn't have annoying popups on the task bar, and can perform the same functions as Realplayer. the only reason to download Realplayer is to watch/listen to streaming .rm files. and websites like amazon are now offering alternatives when it comes to music samples, so no more need for Real.
Chinese authorities have reportedly taken iPads from a third-party retailer, a move apparently brought on by Apple's continued refusal to honor a trademark for the iPad name owned by a Chinese manufacturer.
NY professor believes that a word-based algorithm can help bring together those who believe, with one glimpse, that they have found and lost the love of their lives.
After a higher-than-expected fourth quarter, the video subscription service unburdens itself of a pending yearlong class action suit and settles for $9 million.
Along with green-lighting Google's buy of Motorola, the Justice Department today OKs an Apple-Microsoft-RIM partnership deal to buy Nortel patents, and Apple's plan to acquire Novell patents.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
This week, we pass around Sony's new PlayStation Vita for some hands-on testing, check out HP's newest Beats Audio laptop, and debate the best and worst Valentine's Day gadget gifts.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=e138f31c-1d7a-491e-ac04-657ec5e70789" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=e138f31c-1d7a-491e-ac04-657ec5e70789</a>
What do you want people? Either unbundling of apps or let MS do what they want. You can't have it both ways.
What would you have suggested the EU do?
Of course I think the Windows XP N is not going to sell. You get all the Open Source and linux geeks whining that people don't use their OS when it's free. All they can do is kick up enough stink so that stuff like this happens. But the majority use Windows because it's good enough. I use Media Player because it's good enough. Real and others can complain all they want.
The Eu has its good reasons; try to give other mediaplayers a fair chance. Of course you could download another player if you want to. (wmp finally is one of the better players, so personally I see no need) But it's really cumbersome to get an idea of what player is good, which isn't and then download and install it. Most people use WMP not because it's their first choice, but because it's the easiest solution. Too lazy or dumb to download another player.
Compare with Internet Explorer; IE was never the best browser but it beat the leading browser (netscape) because it came pre-installed with the OS. So the EU would like to see that other, possibly better software gets a chance too.
It's tricky and debatable, but this is a rule in Europe; you want to be on the European market?Good, then play with European rules. Foreign products have to be adapted to the US market,foreign firms have to adhere to US rules too. Time for the US to acknowledge other countries rules, even if it is "a disadvantage".
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=e138f31c-1d7a-491e-ac04-657ec5e70789" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=e138f31c-1d7a-491e-ac04-657ec5e70789</a>
What do you want people? Either unbundling of apps or let MS do what they want. You can't have it both ways.
What would you have suggested the EU do?
Of course I think the Windows XP N is not going to sell. You get all the Open Source and linux geeks whining that people don't use their OS when it's free. All they can do is kick up enough stink so that stuff like this happens. But the majority use Windows because it's good enough. I use Media Player because it's good enough. Real and others can complain all they want.
The Eu has its good reasons; try to give other mediaplayers a fair chance. Of course you could download another player if you want to. (wmp finally is one of the better players, so personally I see no need) But it's really cumbersome to get an idea of what player is good, which isn't and then download and install it. Most people use WMP not because it's their first choice, but because it's the easiest solution. Too lazy or dumb to download another player.
Compare with Internet Explorer; IE was never the best browser but it beat the leading browser (netscape) because it came pre-installed with the OS. So the EU would like to see that other, possibly better software gets a chance too.
It's tricky and debatable, but this is a rule in Europe; you want to be on the European market?Good, then play with European rules. Foreign products have to be adapted to the US market,foreign firms have to adhere to US rules too. Time for the US to acknowledge other countries rules, even if it is "a disadvantage".
capable of being a truly superb OS for the PC. Then MS could
provide all the independant supporting apps they liked to run
with the OS. And the user could chose now or later to install or
uninstall those apps, as the user sees fit.
And maybe MS could use the same basic approach with it's big
scale applications, too. A core Office Suite, with lots of
supporting power functions to be added or removed as the user
chooses
Then the EU would have no complaints. Security would be so
much better, and MS would have products it and the users could
really be be proud of.
That would be nice....
capable of being a truly superb OS for the PC. Then MS could
provide all the independant supporting apps they liked to run
with the OS. And the user could chose now or later to install or
uninstall those apps, as the user sees fit.
And maybe MS could use the same basic approach with it's big
scale applications, too. A core Office Suite, with lots of
supporting power functions to be added or removed as the user
chooses
Then the EU would have no complaints. Security would be so
much better, and MS would have products it and the users could
really be be proud of.
That would be nice....
Real is a joke, Winamp is bloated, and Itunes is extremely DMR/propriety restricted.
I rip/burn, and keep track of all my music with WMP 10. Very useful and to the point program, plus I can control my music from the start menu when minimized (big plus).
<There was any real competition for Windows Media player. Real is a joke, Winamp is bloated, and Itunes is extremely DMR/propriety restricted.>
How is iTunes more "DMR/proprietary restricted" than WMP?
Both have proprietary DRM. But with about 80% market share, Apple's DRM is closest to a "standard".
The problem is that if you buy windows, you have to install it. The problem is that it is a part of the OS, and not a seperate app, like it should be.
IE, WMP, messenger, OE, ect, should be standalone apps, that are not required to be installed. When was the last time you had the option of picking between IE, Firefox or Opera at the time you installed windows? Never? That attitude is why MS constantly gets sued and has paid out billions in damages over the past 10 years or so.
MS would be in a stronger position today, and more then a handful of morons might like them if they played by rules.
Microsoft is doing a very wrong thing by not allowing you to choose what you want when you install yourself, and also not offering the option of other products on install.
When installing linux in my experience (not much, redhat 9) there were a multi-tude of GUI, and programs that you could choose to install or not.
Windows should be that way, you should be able to choose between IE, Firefox, and Opera etc. on install, or all of them.
Choice is good.
Real is a joke, Winamp is bloated, and Itunes is extremely DMR/propriety restricted.
I rip/burn, and keep track of all my music with WMP 10. Very useful and to the point program, plus I can control my music from the start menu when minimized (big plus).
<There was any real competition for Windows Media player. Real is a joke, Winamp is bloated, and Itunes is extremely DMR/propriety restricted.>
How is iTunes more "DMR/proprietary restricted" than WMP?
Both have proprietary DRM. But with about 80% market share, Apple's DRM is closest to a "standard".
The problem is that if you buy windows, you have to install it. The problem is that it is a part of the OS, and not a seperate app, like it should be.
IE, WMP, messenger, OE, ect, should be standalone apps, that are not required to be installed. When was the last time you had the option of picking between IE, Firefox or Opera at the time you installed windows? Never? That attitude is why MS constantly gets sued and has paid out billions in damages over the past 10 years or so.
MS would be in a stronger position today, and more then a handful of morons might like them if they played by rules.
Microsoft is doing a very wrong thing by not allowing you to choose what you want when you install yourself, and also not offering the option of other products on install.
When installing linux in my experience (not much, redhat 9) there were a multi-tude of GUI, and programs that you could choose to install or not.
Windows should be that way, you should be able to choose between IE, Firefox, and Opera etc. on install, or all of them.
Choice is good.
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.
MS label. And to make sure that their customers get it, MS
innovates ever=y app it can into the OS (This is an OS? it's more of
a garbage pile)
Anyway, when was the last tiem MS gave you a choice of what you
wanted on your PC?
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.
MS label. And to make sure that their customers get it, MS
innovates ever=y app it can into the OS (This is an OS? it's more of
a garbage pile)
Anyway, when was the last tiem MS gave you a choice of what you
wanted on your PC?
MOST PEOPLE are NOT Techies! They do not know enough to
explore software alternatives/choices.
It is not so bad that MS targets people who know nothing and want to know nothing(although things like shortcuts should be technically out of reach to anyone who can turn on a computer), the problem is that MS profits by keeping them in the dark, and restricting choices. If you are going to go after the technically inept, your product damn well better be secure out of the box, and easy to use and understand.
People not only don't know how royally they are getting screwed, but act like MS is doing them a favor.
MOST PEOPLE are NOT Techies! They do not know enough to
explore software alternatives/choices.
It is not so bad that MS targets people who know nothing and want to know nothing(although things like shortcuts should be technically out of reach to anyone who can turn on a computer), the problem is that MS profits by keeping them in the dark, and restricting choices. If you are going to go after the technically inept, your product damn well better be secure out of the box, and easy to use and understand.
People not only don't know how royally they are getting screwed, but act like MS is doing them a favor.
However there are two problems that have occurred here to completely invalidate the EU's ruling. First, WMP is still available to Windows N customers for free and second, there is no price break for buying the OS without it.
The only block competing MP companies have now is the inconvienence of downloading WMP after they've purchased the OS. Prolly as a download they'd get with the first round of security patches. So once again MS dodges the Anti-trust bullet.
However there are two problems that have occurred here to completely invalidate the EU's ruling. First, WMP is still available to Windows N customers for free and second, there is no price break for buying the OS without it.
The only block competing MP companies have now is the inconvienence of downloading WMP after they've purchased the OS. Prolly as a download they'd get with the first round of security patches. So once again MS dodges the Anti-trust bullet.
I think the problem is that, no offense, geeks design things and assume everyone spends time like they do. If you have kids, a wife, friends, a HOT girlfriend or a job that doesn't let you play with phones or pcs all day you don't spend enough time with phones or pcs to dedicate separate time to configing this or that.
And at the end of the day, why would anyone pay for a browser, remember when Netscape was selling their browser-I do, when MS gives it for free.
I think the problem is that, no offense, geeks design things and assume everyone spends time like they do. If you have kids, a wife, friends, a HOT girlfriend or a job that doesn't let you play with phones or pcs all day you don't spend enough time with phones or pcs to dedicate separate time to configing this or that.
And at the end of the day, why would anyone pay for a browser, remember when Netscape was selling their browser-I do, when MS gives it for free.
Run windows update.
"Oh I dont have media player let me just click the box and download it."
Microsoft just managed to get real networks to spend $$$$$$$$ and hundreds or thousand of man hous. Which would have been better spent on product development. Then people like me would not load real player in its absolute minimum. BEcause we feel that there are other products that do a better job. The only reason I use realplayer is for the of web site I go to that streams real player. On websites like www.triplej.net.au that give me a choice I ALWAYS choose MS mediaplayer
MS is big enough that the leagal bill matters not and and they know that they can tie up the opositions time and effort in leagal action. When MS product developement team goes on merily developing the next version of its software.
What does the N stand for in Win XP N , Neutered?
Run windows update.
"Oh I dont have media player let me just click the box and download it."
Microsoft just managed to get real networks to spend $$$$$$$$ and hundreds or thousand of man hous. Which would have been better spent on product development. Then people like me would not load real player in its absolute minimum. BEcause we feel that there are other products that do a better job. The only reason I use realplayer is for the of web site I go to that streams real player. On websites like www.triplej.net.au that give me a choice I ALWAYS choose MS mediaplayer
MS is big enough that the leagal bill matters not and and they know that they can tie up the opositions time and effort in leagal action. When MS product developement team goes on merily developing the next version of its software.
What does the N stand for in Win XP N , Neutered?
Mike
You cant get much cheaper than free nor can you pay your employees with the profits made off of free.
You can either absorb the cost of developing a media player application into your business model like Microsoft and Apple, try to turn a profit and keep your company afloat using advertising like Real (we all know how well thats going), or you can become a non-profit organization and develop open source.
Right now the only thing to compete for is market share.. which Microsoft has an unfair advantage in.
Most people would say "who cares? Its free theyre not making money off of it so what could a monopoly in media players hurt?".
Well consider for a moment what you can do if your proprietary software with a proprietary file format is installed on 90%+ of computers.. consider the licensing fees you can profit off of.. consider that you can start charging anything you want for your player since its required to play the 90% of media encoded in your proprietary format.
You can stop drooling now.
Imagine for a moment you are given a few million dollars and are instructed to create a company that sells media player software that is not only self sustaining it has to turn a profit, include all the features of WMP and not use advertising.
Could you? Is it possible in todays market?
Now do you see the problem?
As to the fact that you can install any media player you wish, hence there is no monopoly you have to consider the motivational aspect.
When you purchase a new PC and need to play a media file.. if there is a media player already installed.. why would the average person go to all the trouble of finding, downloading, installing and configuring a new media player? Unless there is something the included media player cant do that you desperately need it to there is no motivation to choose the best player at the best cost, therefore there is no free market since such decisions are integral to the healthy functioning of the economy.
Is it fair to continue letting Microsoft leverage one illegal monopoly to create another and another and another?
At the last minute the EUs ruling was changed to allow MS to completely circumvent the intention of the court and you accuse Microsofts competitors of bribing officials?
Firstly, when given the choice between a free player and having to pay for one.. do you think the average consumer would want to start paying for what they have been getting for free? Of course they want WMP included with windows.
Also you have to remember that since MS has been bundling it for years, they have come to expect a media player to come with the OS.
Not because it should, but because its what they're used to.
Mike
You cant get much cheaper than free nor can you pay your employees with the profits made off of free.
You can either absorb the cost of developing a media player application into your business model like Microsoft and Apple, try to turn a profit and keep your company afloat using advertising like Real (we all know how well thats going), or you can become a non-profit organization and develop open source.
Right now the only thing to compete for is market share.. which Microsoft has an unfair advantage in.
Most people would say "who cares? Its free theyre not making money off of it so what could a monopoly in media players hurt?".
Well consider for a moment what you can do if your proprietary software with a proprietary file format is installed on 90%+ of computers.. consider the licensing fees you can profit off of.. consider that you can start charging anything you want for your player since its required to play the 90% of media encoded in your proprietary format.
You can stop drooling now.
Imagine for a moment you are given a few million dollars and are instructed to create a company that sells media player software that is not only self sustaining it has to turn a profit, include all the features of WMP and not use advertising.
Could you? Is it possible in todays market?
Now do you see the problem?
As to the fact that you can install any media player you wish, hence there is no monopoly you have to consider the motivational aspect.
When you purchase a new PC and need to play a media file.. if there is a media player already installed.. why would the average person go to all the trouble of finding, downloading, installing and configuring a new media player? Unless there is something the included media player cant do that you desperately need it to there is no motivation to choose the best player at the best cost, therefore there is no free market since such decisions are integral to the healthy functioning of the economy.
Is it fair to continue letting Microsoft leverage one illegal monopoly to create another and another and another?
At the last minute the EUs ruling was changed to allow MS to completely circumvent the intention of the court and you accuse Microsofts competitors of bribing officials?
Firstly, when given the choice between a free player and having to pay for one.. do you think the average consumer would want to start paying for what they have been getting for free? Of course they want WMP included with windows.
Also you have to remember that since MS has been bundling it for years, they have come to expect a media player to come with the OS.
Not because it should, but because its what they're used to.