Microsoft pledged to ‘play fair’ on all its future operating systems, including Windows Vista, will abide by self-imposed rules aimed at bolstering choice and competition. The announcement comes just a week after the European regulators slapped the company with a USD 357.3 million fine for noncompliance with a 2004 antitrust ruling.
So, what about the 5 or so _current_ operating systems? Changes start at the present, tomorrow never comes.
The article basically says “once the US court ruling requiring us to behave a certain way expires, we’re going to keep behaving that way.”
So the answer is: they’re already required by the courts to do that, now…
Seeing is believing.
True. I can’t get over the number of people who take everything that MS say at face value- year after year, again and a again…
How about they give wine a little nudge of help then…it will never happen…*sigh*
“How about they give wine a little nudge of help then…it will never happen…*sigh*”
Good point. Would even be better if the manufacturers just started releasing software for Linux, or if the manufacturers themselves allowed the app to run with wine.
so how do they punish themselves if they dont abide their own rules?
They say they won’t do it again next time.
Yes, because next time they’ll find worse ways to break the law…
Easy. Run around the village 500 times on their hands.
Of the two examples given.
The search box – I thought the problem the google had was not that it could be reset, but that it wasn’t the default.
Windows media player – When asked to unbundle WMP didn’t they just do something *really really clever* and created something that looks cripped, and if software takes advantage of the API like explorer it is.
I do like the spin on Microsoft has learnt from the *US* ruling 9 years ago. When it takes then 350 million dollers to get them to even talk like a monopoly. Rather than carry on regardless.
Oddly enough 9 years ago the ruling did change Microsoft. It went from a dynamic company to one interested in preseving its monopoly.
It’s also changed CEO’s and gone from being sort-of a monopoly to being the full-out no questions asked king of desktop operating systems, by marketshare.
sarcasm
But no, I’m sure it was the court system that scarred them and caused them to protect their holdings which the court threatened. They’re really just like a sick child right?
/sarcasm
The headline should be more like “Microsoft allows PC vendors to replace IE/WMP with adware/spyware”. I don’t want anyone to preinstall loads of applications on my computer; I don’t really care whether it’s Microsoft or the hardware vendor.
This policy is good for Google, Yahoo, Adobe, Opera, adware vendors, etc. but I don’t see many benefits for customers.
Imagine having Netscape 8 and Real Player installed instead of IE/WMP, what fun that would be!
I don’t mind MS bundling IE and WMP as a web browser and media player are basic requirements of a modern operating system. What I don’t like is that I can’t uninstall either of them and that MS constantly try to force me into using these products (MSN only opens links in IE, WMA/WMV formats).
Imagine having Netscape 8 and Real Player installed instead of IE/WMP, what fun that would be!
In reality its about firefox or iTunes. IE and WMP pretty much killed off the oppersition, and we have been lest with it for *Years* That is the point. We wouldn’t be using such backward computer programs now.
HP already bundles iTunes as the default *music* player. I wouldn’t want iTunes as the default media player in general, because it’s pretty woeful for videos. I don’t think it plays DVDs at all either.
“10. Communications protocols. Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows.”
Still secret and under an NDA. GPL incompatible. Don’t give up your day job Tridge’
It looks like a step in right direction, but I plain don’t trust those guys. In spite of the fancy words and sentiments I reckon that what info they DO release will be as cryptic as possible, as expensive as possible and as incomplete as possible.
Let’s be fair: Microsoft making a commitment to letting customers and OEMs change default settings is a step in the right direction. Making communications protocols and APIs available under NDA, reserving the right to charge a fee for such access, is not a step in any direction. That’s the way Microsoft’s partners have always been forced to deal with their protocols and APIs.
While I commend the EU for sticking to its guns, I feel that they didn’t go far enough. Not on the monetary fine, I think that’s more-or-less appropriate. But they only stipulate that MS has to release protocol and API documentation under “commercially reasonable terms,” which is the same wording that MS is repeating in this statement. This means that, quite specifically, MS can make the terms completely unreasonable for noncommercial software developers.
Once again, let’s be fair: Microsoft has the right to protect its patents, implementation design/architecture, and code (both source and binary). However, since there is precedent and mutual interest with regard to interoperability, I contend that Microsoft does not have the right to guard its protocols and APIs.
In what sense is it acceptable for Microsoft to only have to release this information to commercial vendors, when a large component of its competition comes from noncommercial entities? How is it fair to commercial service providers who provide support for noncommercial software?
The net effect of the EU mandate (besides the unbundling of WMP) is to specify exactly what kinds of information MS must release to commercial vendors under essentially the same terms as they have always released this sort of information. Pardon me if I’m not exactly jumping for joy.
i agree. It could create an even larger monopoly within the commercial sector alone while 50 percent or more of the industry is going open source or free.
Yeah, right. The only devil I’ve seen to go to church is Al Pacino… and it wasn’t even real. 🙂
That was pretty crap… did you not watch End Of Days ?
Gabrielle Byrne was a more convincing Satan when he went to church
From the article:
Computer manufacturers and customers are free to add any software to PCs that run Windows. More broadly, every computer manufacturer and customer is free to install and promote any operating system, any application, and any Web service on PCs that run Windows
One way of reading this is, ‘as long as you install Windows, Mr. Manufacturer, you are free to add anything else, even another OS!”
The biggest problem has been the exclusivist contracts Microsoft has generated that practially force OEM’s (financially) to install Windows on every PC that goes out the door. Previous contracts were setup PER PC SOLD, regardless of whether or not it had Windows (IIRC). The assurance needs to be made clearly that there will be no negative impact for selling PC’s without Windows.
If OEMs would wake up and realize that Microsoft needs them more than they need Microsoft, they could effectively make MS behave.
Right now, probably 90% of all windows system sales are pre-installed PC systems and very few–comparatively speaking–buy a new OS and install on their present system (unless it’s Linux!)
Just imagine all OEMs deciding to offer Linux. It would force them to differentiate their hardware offerings and it would also have the effect of making MS do a little dance to get their software installed on the manufacturer’s PC.
All it takes is a little inertia in the industry to start saying “no” to MS and to start pre-loading Linux with all of the driver support, etc.
This scenario may not be that far away. All we need is a tipping point of sorts. And me thinks this tipping point is a desktop-ready linux.
Ubuntu maybe?
Edited 2006-07-20 22:32
Did they do the spit thing?
‘Cause it doesn’t count if they didn’t
is like entrusting the care of your child to a serial rapist with pedophile tendencies. It shouldnt be done. If the US government doesnt keep track of Microsoft then that just shows you how much money really does buy.
I’m afraid you’re too late, Microsoft already have bought the US government and their legal system.
Their new “pledge” still doesn’t work for Open Source Software which makes it still not in full compliance. Andrew Tridgell, the samba lead developer, was one of the big witnesses at their EU antitrust trial. They still haven’t changed.
The EU wants them to make their specifications Open Source Friendly and they are playing hardball. On the EU’s turf, so can the EU.
‘Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows’………
Without a saviour with deep pockets this looks like an attempt at blocking access via the backdoor, open standards should be that, open to everyone, not just on ‘commercially reasonable’ terms.
A lawyer could make anything reasonable… including a trip to mars for 50p before releasing info 😉
i may even buy vista as a result.
And I’m Henry the 8th.
The EU only said Microsoft can ask for a reasonably price for those parts of the protocols which are protected by their IP. I don’t know how much of it that can be, but I guess you can’t claim IP on most of the data transmitted between applications, only on the code of the applications.
customers are free to […] install and promote any operating system […] on PCs that run Windows.
Well, uh, thankyou! Been doing that for six year now.
Edited 2006-07-20 22:55
One thing I was wondering… why doesn’t anybody say something about apple bundling every kind of software with their OS? Ok Apple does not detain 80% or whatever it is of the market share… and Apple did not kill netscape, but still, when you buy a mac there are more apps bundled with the OS than in Windoze. Sure you can install your own… but how many do that?
I’m not trying to defend MS… it’s just something that came to my mind…
You just said why. Because they are not a monopoly different rules apply.
Furthermore you can simply remove iTunes and the QuickTime player by putting it in the Trash and emptying it. QuickTime itself couldn’t probably be removed because it is AFAIK I know used by many parts of the system to handle the display of graphics and images, so it is probably an integral part of the system.
The APIs for using QuickTime are well documented and used by many other applications, so it’s rather open. Also many 3rd party vendors provide plugins for QuickTime to playback other codecs, so they can save the cost of developing their own media players and just provide the codec for their product. So it’s a rather open architecture. There are even free plugins for Ogg.
Actually QuickTime itself was the base model for the MPEG-4 format.
@HanZo
>>>One thing I was wondering… why doesn’t anybody say something about apple bundling every kind of software with their OS? Ok Apple does not detain 80% or whatever it is of the market share… and Apple did not kill netscape, but still, when you buy a mac there are more apps bundled with the OS than in Windoze. Sure you can install your own… but how many do that?
I’m not trying to defend MS… it’s just something that came to my mind…
MS is/was not accused so much for bundling many applications, instead it is accused for
* Prohibiting OEMs to bundle non-MS apps if they wanted to or iff the customers wanted to.
* Prohibiting OEMs to remove MS applications
* Making some apps hard or even impossible to be uninstalled
* Making some MS apps behave in such a way that they would block or turn too difficult the installation of apps made by competitors.
MS is/was not accused so much for bundling many applications, instead it is accused for
* Prohibiting OEMs to bundle non-MS apps if they wanted to or iff the customers wanted to.
* Prohibiting OEMs to remove MS applications
* Making some apps hard or even impossible to be uninstalled
* Making some MS apps behave in such a way that they would block or turn too difficult the installation of apps made by competitors.
None of that applies to Apple since Apple is its own OEM (after they killed of the Mac clones because the clones were outcompeting Apple itself). But from a consumer’s point of view (which is what I care about; damn the OEM’s and their crapware ad-ons), Mac buyers are more locked in with fewer choices than Windows PC buyers. Hell, you can’t even add a different search engine to OSX’s default browser, let alone change the default (due to Apple’s *exclusive* deal with Google). So Mac fans should be wary of acting like Apple is an angel of some sort. They’re no better than MS.
Nobody is saying that Apple’s an angel, none of the companies are. Google is the most popular search engine and thats why apple has made it a default search engine in Safari, the same can be said about Firefox, Camino, Seamonkey and Opera. Safaricon and Safari Enhancer enable you to change the default search engine to yahoo, msn or altavista etc. We do have choices, to lazy to exercise our options. Enabling the debug menu in Safari you can also change the useragent to Internet Explorer 6.0 running on Windows XP.
Choice and competition feature only available right on your desktop through the Windows Vista (TM) built in “Play Fair (TM) Wizard (TM, Pat Pending)”
For full details visit http://www.microsoft.com/PlayFair*
*IE7 Required
Sounds corny ‘Play Fair Wizard’??? patent pending some more… LOL
I thought it should be a given.
So they finally admit they aint fair all these while.
the only thing that could blow some fresh wind in the whole thing is MS failing drastically on Vista, loosing market share, new competitors gaining strengh (and not just Apple which is not a real competitor of MS since they focus on different markets IMHO). As long as MS detains monopoly things wouldn’t get better I think.
The question is… will the competition be any better once they grow? Would Apple or Novell be really any better if they had 80% of the market share?
And btw.. ever immagined a desktop world ruled by Apple? I’d be like Soviet union… a world clad in white… a world where you cannot move any part of the UI because you don’t know what you are doing anyway… you can change the background isn’t that enough? (ok I’m just exagerating it a bit for fun).
Anyway… Apple sure is different… but I wonder if it were really better (same applies to any other big company out there)… I may be extereme… but the problem to me is the system as a whole not just the single company…
Edited 2006-07-21 08:38
Ya, right; and those people in the “Hot Place” are getting ice water. It is kind of like the fox taking over security for the hen house.
By giving this new terms, Microsoft oficcially admitted having the OEM’s in a stranglehold until now. They have actively prohibited to install any other system than windows. All the people criticising Mirosoft for this beaviour where right all the time…
Now am I tho only one that’s reading between the rules?
Anyway – I don’t think the phrase:
“10. Communications protocols. Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows.”
– is gonna take them out of problems with the EU. They still can rule out any OSS vendor on terms that it’s not “commercially reasonable” to give them any information. They also can ask ANY price (as long as they say it’s “commercially reasonable”, and who can argue against it?). Also they can ask anyone seeing this information to sign a NDA, because they never said the information is freely available. Also they only give information to “communicate” with the server version of windows. That rules out ANY other protocol..
The EU has asked them to open up these protocols for anyone to use. Microsoft still can use the above rules to only open up this information for a selected group, for a high fee and under any condition they like…
Sounds to me nothing has been changed……..
(sorry about my english – it’s not my native language)
[quote]Sounds to me nothing has been changed…….. [/quote]
Of course not. Microsoft is a big company, they are just afraid of a) loosing money b) loosing prestige.
Anybody remembers Phillip Morris trying to rebuild its image after the big trials 5-6 years ago? They boght Kraft and Miller’s Beer to do that… but of course they never really meant it.
I mean it’s pure illusion to think that any big company like MS would do something because it is right, good or nice… they just never do… there’s a lot of dirty money out there made by companies that just don’t give a shit… think about the whole landmines thing for example…
Anyway… I just hope MS collapses one day or another… that would bring new dynamics into the market for sure!
I laughed out loud when I read this!
)
It’s a sad pathetic joke on the world to utter these words because Microsoft has demonstrated amply that they have absolutely _NO_INTENTION_ to abide by this or any other court ruling.
Well, first off, this isn’t a court ruling. This is Microsoft’s own pledge, freely given. Secondly, the only court ruling that they haven’t abided by (arguably) is the EU decision. Note that even there Microsoft agreed to and rapidly conformed the vast majority of the terms set forth; the EU only complained about a small part of one item.
It’s a casus belli analagous to the July Ultimatum — Austria-Hungary knew that the terms were absurd and could not be agreed to; Serbia surprised everyone by agreeing to almost everything. It didn’t matter, of course, as Austria-Hungary was just looking for an excuse for war.