 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:20
|
|
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22055
quote:
EU sleuths think Microsoft sabotaged Windows
Vole wriggles in legal wrangle
By Paul Hales: Wednesday 23 March 2005, 11:09
IN IT’S ONGOING BATTLE with Microsoft, the European Commission is investigating the possibility that the Vole has sneakily sabotaged the Media Player-free versions of Windows it is obliged to ship to the EU.
The Commission decided last year that Microsoft was abusing its monopoly position by including its Media Player software in its Windows XP 'operating system'.
It told the software maker to ship a stripped-down version of Windows XP to countries in the European Union and slapped a mighty fine on the monopolist.
Microsoft is still appealing against the decision but has begun shipping Media Player-free versions of XP to the EU, as instructed.
A report in today’s Wall Street Journal suggests Microsoft has fiddled with the registry in its stripped-down Windows offerings and the result is that video clips embedded into Microsoft Word documents don’t run properly, for example.
The Journal quotes Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for European antitrust chief Neelie Kroes, as saying: "The commission is still in the process of assessing ... whether Microsoft is complying properly with the requirement to offer a fully functioning version of Windows without Media Player."
In particular, he said, "the commission has to verify the requirement that Microsoft refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or less functional."
A spokesVole said Microsoft was "fully committed to complying" with the Commission, but said any such problems with the registry would be the result of the unbundling process the Commission had insisted on in the first place.
Microsoft’s digital video competitor RealNetworks had been able to demonstrate a Media Player-free version of Windows running "without technical glitches", the Journal notes. |
This is fantastic.
EU orders MS to make a version of Windows available without WMP, then MS complies.
But now it turns out people can't rely on integrated media playing functionality in other apps if you remove the media-playing functionality that came bundled with the OS! This is an amazing discovery.
Quick, fine MS to cover up our stupidity! We just want them to remove their interface, not their functionality. We know what a world of difference that makes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
The problem may be, that Microsoft usually puts part of core functionality, which would have to take place in the OS itself, into its interface products, like the mentioned internet functionality into the IE and media functionality into the Media Player.
There is a valid comparison with cars, where the ignition electronics is built into the car radio. You can't remove the radio, because the car wouldn't drive anymore. You could install a second radio if you wish another, but that would be a waste. So most people would just stick with the built in radio. The same is happening with Windows.
Microsoft should design its OS software better and draw a clear cut between core functionality and interface. If there were a core internet DLL, which could be used by the IE as well as by other browser products, and a media DLL, which could be used by the Media Player as well as other audio or video interfaces, nobody would argue and everyone would be happy. Because you actually could REPLACE IE and WMP with other interfaces. As long Microsoft does not change this behavior, every fine slapped on them will be justified.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The problem may be, that Microsoft usually puts part of core functionality, which would have to take place in the OS itself, into its interface products, like the mentioned internet functionality into the IE and media functionality into the Media Player.
There is a valid comparison with cars, where the ignition electronics is built into the car radio. You can't remove the radio, because the car wouldn't drive anymore. You could install a second radio if you wish another, but that would be a waste. So most people would just stick with the built in radio. The same is happening with Windows.
Microsoft should design its OS software better and draw a clear cut between core functionality and interface. If there were a core internet DLL, which could be used by the IE as well as by other browser products, and a media DLL, which could be used by the Media Player as well as other audio or video interfaces, nobody would argue and everyone would be happy. Because you actually could REPLACE IE and WMP with other interfaces. As long Microsoft does not change this behavior, every fine slapped on them will be justified. |
Think.
The whole purpose of forcing them to unbundle WMP was because they believe it was giving MS an unfair advantage in the adoption of its formats versus the competition (Real vs Windows Media, for example). If you remove the interface but retain the functionality, that doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
There already is a distinction between functionality and interface, which is why Winamp can use the same DirectShow functionality that WMP provides. Same with lots of PC games these days, the videos are played via DirectShow...which is powered by WMP.
EU told them to remove WMP, which with the goals in mind clearly indicates the functionality. MS complies, and now EU is being taken by surprise...oh my, this breaks things. 
And your post is all the more irrelevant...you can replace the interface while retaining the functionality. Avant and Maxthon, for example, use the IE rendering engine without the IE interface. Winamp uses DirectShow, which uses WMP functionality without the WMP interface.
All of that is there, the problem is the EU doesn't know what it's doing. When the US gov't ordered changes, it just removes references to IE...the DLLs still exist, just not any links to the interface. That's a more intelligent decision.
The EU is even more inept than the US DOJ, which is really an amazing accomplishment.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Why WMP and not the OS? Can you use WinAMP without having the WMP installed? If not, there is no distinction between interface and functionality whatsoever. |
WMP is always installed. When there's no codecs or decoding engines available, DirectShow fails. That's what happens if WMP is removed and you don't have any other DirectShow codecs installed.
WMP is a consumer encoding/decoding engine. The interface you see when it's embedded in webpages is completely different from when you launch the standalone app, for instance. You can remove the stand-alone WMP app, but that's not addressing the complaint that was made to the EU.
quote:
So can you remove the IE interface without removing the rendering functionality for third party programs needing those, and the WMP interface without removing the multimedia functionality for the same reason? If not, your post is completely irrelevant. If yes, I rest my case. |
You don't rest your case, no one ever said it's not possible to remove the interface.
It's just not what was asked for MS, and there's no point to doing it. The complaint that sparked this whole thing was MS using its OS to get its formats the dominant in the industry. Shipping an OS wth built-in support for those formats doesn't address the complaint.
EU orders MS to remove that, and then realized after the fact that many components of Windows applications rely on the existence of WMP functionality embedded in the OS...
So, to summarize...yes, you can remove the interface. No one said this was impossible. It doesn't address anything, just nothing changed because you can remove references to IE in Windows XP SP1 and higher.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
WMP is a lot more than just codecs. It has an integrated media database, disk burning interface, various device controls, webradio and other pretty bloated stuff. This is not meant as rant, I use WMP myself mainly because I rarely play music anyway and it satisfies my media needs.
But my question is, why should an user, who wants to install 3rd party software, have to install this bloated monster, if all he needs is the codecs? |
My question is, how do this affect the consumer?
The spirit of the anti-trust laws is to ensure the consumer is getting fair prices and good products. If the consumer is given choices -- you can make competing players your default player and never use WMP -- and still choose to use the default one, are they harmed?
And you focus too much on the interface. The issue is the codecs, having the ability for the OS to decode WMA files out of the box, but not Quicktime or Real media.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2005 18:16
|