Foot, Aim, Shoot, Miss. It's The European Court's Decision

[Vaio]

Microsoft were dealt a mighty blow with a record fine of £331 million. Bill Gates will have to cut his pocket money for Thursday by half to cover this mighty fine. Read all about it here and ph33r the European Commission.......

Dickheads

Vaio

[Nodrog]

A 1 pound fine is an injustice assuming its undeserved.

[Zar]

the real blow is not the fine.

its the fact that microsoft have to release details of their code

[Vaio]

Not quite my jewish hating friend, the real blow is that WMP isn't really the problem. It's the bundling of Internet Explorer (complete with the 'we can't remove it as it's part of the operating system' lie), the fact that manufacturers seem to be forced to stick Windows on new computers, the pathetic attempts to wipe out open source competition and the fact that Microsoft seem to be able to change their pricing structure to exclude competition and tie government agencies (hello Newham) and businesses into using their software while poor saps like us pay full price, oh and the fact this trial is about 3 years too late.

WMP isn't the problem as apart from Winamp, the 'competition' hasn't released anything as versatile or useful. Let's face it, Real Player is dreadful.

Vaio

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Vaio

the fact that manufacturers seem to be forced to stick Windows on new computers

Its illegal to distribute new computers with linux or a BSD installed?

Originally Posted by Vaio

the pathetic attempts to wipe out open source competition

such as?

Originally Posted by Vaio

and the fact that Microsoft seem to be able to change their pricing structure

Well yeah, when youre selling something youre normally able to do this.

[Vaio]

Oh Gordy, please use a search engine. You are missing gems like this,this,this and even this.

Vaio

[Vaio]

This one is interesting as well

Vaio

[Vaio]

Hi Ed, getting ready to jump on the grave of the Tricorn ?

Vaio

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Hi Ed, getting ready to jump on the grave of the Tricorn ?

Vaio

I'm probably one of the few people from Portsmouth who hasn't urinated on it

At least I think so, anyway.

[Vaio]

tee hee

Vaio

[at0mic.c0w]

last i heard was MS is gonna buy the commision and is planning its integration into Windows.

[Vaio]

Either that or denounce them as cancer causing communists

Vaio

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Oh Gordy, please use a search engine. You are missing gems like this,this,this and even this.

Vaio

So youre basically saying that Microsoft threatening to stop selling Windows to people forces them to use Windows, and that someone promoting their own software/business model is an instance of trying to 'crush the competition"?

[Vaio]

In a world where the competition gets Windows pre-supplied, the major manufacturer that doesn't is kind of left behind wouldn't you think ? (Think IBM and OS/2) and when their 'advertising' is made up of falsehoods, insults and inaccuracies against the competition then that's surely a little bit bad. I hope you are not doing business studies or economics Gordy.

Vaio

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Vaio

WMP isn't the problem as apart from Winamp, the 'competition' hasn't released anything as versatile or useful. Let's face it, Real Player is dreadful.

BSPlayer, WinAmp, and you're a long way already.

[Vaio]

I've never used BSPlayer, Winamp and WMP, between them play all the multimedia files I have

Vaio

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Vaio

In a world where the competition gets Windows pre-supplied, the major manufacturer that doesn't is kind of left behind wouldn't you think ? (Think IBM and OS/2) and when their 'advertising' is made up of falsehoods, insults and inaccuracies against the competition then that's surely a little bit bad. I hope you are not doing business studies or economics Gordy.

Then they arent being 'forced' to give away computers with Windows; they are choosing to do so because that is what their customers want. Are car manufacturers being 'forced' to make cars out of metal, because noone would buy a paper car?

[MrL_JaKiri]

I don't see what's wrong with prebundled software, like IE or WMP. It actually makes the PC usable.

The main problem with Quicktime and Real Player is that they're absolutely terrible, I don't think any of the lawyers understand this.

[Leshy]

The problem with prebundled software is that users do not realise that they are using a certain program in order to achieve a task, but instead they are led to believe that 'clicking a blue e gets the Internet', and that clicking the 'round coloured thingy plays video'. This may seem easy and convenient for the user at first glance.

But the result is that programs such as IE and WMP will get an enormous market dominance that other companies or organisations cannot even begin to compete with. The amount of users on IE and WMP increases, the market becomes more monopolistic. Anyone releasing media to the users, will not only have to make sure that their media displays correctly in Microsoft programs, but can get away with a situation in which their media only displays correctly in Microsoft programs, as they'll be targetting 95% of the population anyway, and targetting the remaining 5% is a waste of increased cost.

Microsoft can then create more and more proprietary standards, up until the point where using products that aren't created by Microsoft is either impossible or useless. Innovation, research and development will all become secondary - after all, you cannot switch to anything better. Which, in turn, is bad for the home user.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Leshy

But the result is that programs such as IE and WMP will get an enormous market dominance that other companies or organisations cannot even begin to compete with. The amount of users on IE and WMP increases, the market becomes more monopolistic. Anyone releasing media to the users, will not only have to make sure that their media displays correctly in Microsoft programs, but can get away with a situation in which their media only displays correctly in Microsoft programs, as they'll be targetting 95% of the population anyway, and targetting the remaining 5% is a waste of increased cost.

Firefish and Opera appear to be competiting with IE despite the logical impossibility of such a situation occurring, and winamp appears to be a genuine competitor to WMP despite being terrible for watching video files. Linux is a perfectly valid alternative to Windows itself.

How are any of these products 'monopolies'? Because charging for the competiting alternatives isnt profitable?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Firefish and Opera appear to be competiting with IE

Neither Mozilla, nor Opera, have any significant market share.

Mozilla continues because it's open-source and thus doesn't require much funding, whereas Opera generates most of it's income on the mobile market. When it comes to the desktop browser market, neither of them is anywhere near competing with Microsoft.

winamp appears to be a genuine competitor to WMP despite being terrible for watching video files.

WinAmp has gained market share due to the fact it could play mp3 files very early on, and thus ride the wave of public attention when mp3 files gained popularity. If Microsoft were to bundle a slick mp3-player with Windows (rather than the big and bloated WMP), WinAmp would find it's userbase rapidly declining as well.

Linux is a perfectly valid alternative to Windows itself.

Not for the home user desktop market. Or do you regularly walk into stores where the new AMD top model comes with Mandrake 10 pre-installed?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Neither Mozilla, nor Opera, have any significant market share.

This isnt relevant. IE isnt a monopoly because there are many alternative competiting products out there. The fact that most people choose not to use these alternatives has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps youre using the word 'monopoly' in a different way from me and most others? It seems like youre confusing it with the phrase "large market share".

Not for the home user desktop market. Or do you regularly walk into stores where the new AMD top model comes with Mandrake 10 pre-installed?

Of course linux is suited for the home user desktop market, and many prefer it for this purpose than windows. Again, the fact that most companies choose to sell computers with windows rather than linux has nothing whatsoever to do with whether windows is a monopoly. There are many competing alternatives, some of which are better than the so-called 'monopolising' products. By what definition of 'monopoly' does the word apply here?

[Nodrog]

seriously, can some of you go and look 'monopoly' up in a dictionary plz, because I dont think it means what a lot of you seem to think it does.

[pablissimo]

You've got the 'logical' definition of a monopoly along the lines of 'effectively the only player in the market', and you've got the 'economics' definition of a monopoly along the lines of 'you're one if you hold above this %age of market share as determined by some suits'.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

You've got the 'logical' definition of a monopoly along the lines of 'effectively the only player in the market', and you've got the 'economics' definition of a monopoly along the lines of 'you're one if you hold above this %age of market share as determined by some suits'.

Then thats the stupidest definition of a monopoly ever, since it automatically results in any company which consumers like being regarded as a monopoly, regardless of whatever practices they have engaged in.

[pablissimo]

I don't make the rules.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This isnt relevant. IE isnt a monopoly because there are many alternative competiting products out there. The fact that most people choose not to use these alternatives has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps youre using the word 'monopoly' in a different way from me and most others? It seems like youre confusing it with the phrase "large market share".

MS are in trouble for using their desktop monopoly to leverage themselves into other markets, the market share of IE is irrelevant here as it's the desktop monopoly that's the problem.

Of course linux is suited for the home user desktop market, and many prefer it for this purpose than windows. Again, the fact that most companies choose to sell computers with windows rather than linux has nothing whatsoever to do with whether windows is a monopoly. There are many competing alternatives, some of which are better than the so-called 'monopolising' products. By what definition of 'monopoly' does the word apply here?

The legal definition. It doesn't matter if there are equally good competitors, Microsoft has a desktop monopoly by any legal definition you care to mention. The number of companies only selling Windows on their PCs is a function of that monopoly status, when IBM started pushing out OS/2 their OEM cost per box for Windows went up to $100/box where Dell were paying $10. Offer an alternative OS and MS push up your costs on all the Windows boxes (i.e. the majority). In a market as competetive as the PC one is that effectively leaves the majority of your sales unprofitable.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Then thats the stupidest definition of a monopoly ever, since it automatically results in any company which consumers like being regarded as a monopoly, regardless of whatever practices they have engaged in.

Being a monopoly is not illegal, abusing your monopoly position to stifle competition is.

[Vaio]

Gordy you are so out of your depth here. Can you go start a thread on the uses of the word Jobbie instead ?

Vaio

[ChubbyChecker]

It's pretty damned obvious that MS have abused their monopoly power. The only reason the Americans didn't fine MS is because of the power of the almighty dollar in the American judicial system.

But, having said that, I quite like the fact that MS are an all-destroying monopoly, makes things easier.

[xtothez]

Rivals including Realnetworks welcomed the move, saying that at long last the playing field had been levelled.
Dave Stewart, one of Realnetworks' lawyers, said in an interview with Reuters that the ruling probably will allow the company to increase its market share.

Someone give MS the money back... quick...

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Perhaps youre using the word 'monopoly' in a different way from me and most others?

Do note that you are the first poster on the page to use the word monopoly. Perhaps you are reading the English language in a different way from me and most others?

[Embroglio]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see what's wrong with prebundled software, like IE or WMP. It actually makes the PC usable.

The main problem with Quicktime and Real Player is that they're absolutely terrible, I don't think any of the lawyers understand this.

[Tactitus]

Apple is doing exactly the same thing--bundled apps, embedded browser, etc. In fact, Apple is "worse" because they're also doing the h/w. The difference is: MS is vastly more successful; therefore, it's OK to hold them to a different standard.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see what's wrong with prebundled software, like IE or WMP. It actually makes the PC usable.

The main problem with Quicktime and Real Player is that they're absolutely terrible, I don't think any of the lawyers understand this.

Indeedy, The only good thing about Quicktime is that you can watch computerboy.mov with it.

Real Player is like a field covered in shit without the field

Vaio

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Apple is doing exactly the same thing--bundled apps, embedded browser, etc. In fact, Apple is "worse" because they're also doing the h/w. The difference is: MS is vastly more successful; therefore, it's OK to hold them to a different standard.

Yes but no-one buys Macs' so thats ok.

Actually, they don't have a market share as big as Microsofts and are unable to monopolise the market.

Vaio

[Leshy]

Apple only exist by the grace of Microsoft.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Then thats the stupidest definition of a monopoly ever, since it automatically results in any company which consumers like being regarded as a monopoly, regardless of whatever practices they have engaged in.

The idea is that a company has such a large presence on the market that it can afford to act like the monopolist, resulting in the inefficiency and high prices that come with it, preventing the maximisation of consumer welfare. In Euro speak this is known as 'dominance' as you will find in article 82 EC.

Being in a dominant position is not illegal per se, but using it to restrict competition is - essentially, the higher the market share the less you can get away with - the key is always to define the market correctly and is often a matter of interpretation. As Microsoft has a ridiculously high market share (comparable to the phenomenon known as super-dominance) Microsoft has to be very careful not to engage in any naughty behaviour.

You could of course give the Chicagoan argument that the market will regulate itself, and those seeing MS's high profits in the market will take the time and effort to get into the market with a better and cheaper product, but such an outcome is not certain and considering that Windows is preinstalled on most machines bundled with their various packages this makes the barriers of entry to the market rather large, hence why Microsoft has been in trouble with antitrust authorities in the US and the EU

[Radical Edward]

if people produced products that were actually better than MS stuff, other people would use them. As it happens RealPlayer is just absolutely terrible. I was half tempted to send a letter into the court pointing this out to them. "RealPlayer might do better if they were less shit"

[Vaio]

I've been trying for about 2 hours and I can't think of 1 redeeming feature about Real Player

Vaio

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

But the result is that programs such as IE and WMP will get an enormous market dominance that other companies or organisations cannot even begin to compete with. The amount of users on IE and WMP increases, the market becomes more monopolistic. Anyone releasing media to the users, will not only have to make sure that their media displays correctly in Microsoft programs, but can get away with a situation in which their media only displays correctly in Microsoft programs, as they'll be targetting 95% of the population anyway, and targetting the remaining 5% is a waste of increased cost.

However, even if it isn't prebundled, Windows Media Player is FREE.

Also, if you're talking about proprietry file types, what about .rm and .mov? At least I can play .wmv on Winamp (and have been able to for years).

[Vaio]

I discovered yesterday I could play .rm files with WMP. Not sure how that happened. I think it was some codec pack I installed

Vaio

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Then they arent being 'forced' to give away computers with Windows; they are choosing to do so because that is what their customers want. Are car manufacturers being 'forced' to make cars out of metal, because noone would buy a paper car?

And for public companies, what their customers want is what their shareholders want, which is what the directors are legally obliged to do. But that's not important. The courts act in the interest of the consumers, they are what customers want. Just not what what is shown through revealed preference.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

if people produced products that were actually better than MS stuff, other people would use them.

Why do Opera and Mozilla/Firefox have such a low market share then?

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

However, even if it isn't prebundled, Windows Media Player is FREE.

So are RealPlayer and QuickTime - at least, there is little reason to pay for some kind of Pro version.

And yes, proprietary filetypes are bad - they're just worse when you have a dominant market position. No serious company is going to install software that can't handle .doc or .xls files, when it is very likely 95% of all their business relations will be sending them these files, and requesting these files in return.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Why do Opera and Mozilla/Firefox have such a low market share then?

I doubt they'd have a higher market share if IE wasn't prebundled, because everyone has heard of Microsoft, so they're more likely to get IE than something they know nothing about. Obviously this doesn't apply to the nerdier end of the market, but they use Opera and Mozilla ANYWAY.

Originally Posted by Leshy

So are RealPlayer and QuickTime - at least, there is little reason to pay for some kind of Pro version.

That all depends; the first question I get asked by most noncomputer savvy folks when telling them that they need such and such is 'should I buy the pro version?'. It's quite likely that, on their own, they'd buy it because they don't understand most of what it does, and want to make sure it'll work.

Originally Posted by Leshy

And yes, proprietary filetypes are bad - they're just worse when you have a dominant market position. No serious company is going to install software that can't handle .doc or .xls files, when it is very likely 95% of all their business relations will be sending them these files, and requesting these files in return.

I don't think .doc or .xls are a good example, because Microsoft have been using them even when they didn't have a dominant market position. .wm* files (as I said) can be read by most modern players, and Microsoft don't have a problem with that. RealMedia, on the other hand, have sued software developers to stop them utilising or expanding on the .rm format. Which company do you think is more anticompetitive?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I doubt they'd have a higher market share if IE wasn't prebundled, because everyone has heard of Microsoft, so they're more likely to get IE than something they know nothing about.

I don't know if that's true. If IE wasn't prebundled, I suspect you'd see a re-emergance of at least one serious contender even if it was just Mozilla rebranded as "AOL Broswer v1.0" or whatever.

Most of the major media players are god-awful (and that includes Windows Media Player, Quicktime, Real Player, etc). Even when they're not poorly programmed they come from completley the wrong perspective of "Hey let's annoy our users with annoying bells and whistles to the point where they'll want to kill themselves".

[MrL_JaKiri]

WMP is good, I think. For videos at least.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I doubt they'd have a higher market share if IE wasn't prebundled, because everyone has heard of Microsoft, so they're more likely to get IE than something they know nothing about. Obviously this doesn't apply to the nerdier end of the market, but they use Opera and Mozilla ANYWAY.

Actually when IE wasn't bundled with Windows 95, Netscape, for some time, held a large share of the market that eroded once MS discovered that Windows wouldn't work without IE (or something) and made sure it was bundled

Vaio

[MrL_JaKiri]

Different time, different circumstances.

Anyway, what would you prefer if you knew nothing about computers?

Internet Explorer, or Mozilla? (Just from the names)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Internet Explorer, or Mozilla? (Just from the names)

Again though, that's an unfair comparison. At the moment Mozilla is mainly pitched towards enthusiasts (because of the current situation with most users having a default available).

If there was no bundled IE, as I mention, you'd probably get a larger player throwing their weight behind a user friend version of Mozilla. Most people have heard of AOL for instance, so there'd be some incentive for them to bother distirbuting browser type products.