Coming to terms with Win XP after using Win 98

[Mxsmanic]

To Bill Gates, Microsoft is a monopoly getter. Bill Gates, Steve
Ballmer, and the rest of Microsoft could not care less about
anything except maintaining and expanding Microsoft's monopoly
power.

Bill Gates' concern with Microsoft is technological expansion. Steve
Ballmer's main worry is making money.

Microsoft could not care less about the future of high
technology.

Companies care about technology only to the extent that technology
affects their bottom line.

On the contrary, Microsoft is a drag on high-technology.

I've seen nothing to indicate this.

 

[Mxsmanic]

To me (in the USA) it looks like the EU has a personal vendetta against MS.

I believe those with vendettas against Microsoft have more influenct
in Europe than in the US, probably because Europeans are more naïve
about computers than Americans, especially among politicians.

It seems like the EU makes up rules and when MS complies, the EU adds
MORE rules onto that so MS is still out of compliance.

I get the same impression. I don't know whom they are trying to
protect, but it's not the consumer or end user.

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe writes:




Stores stock what people buy. If they stock only Windows, that
implies that there is little or no demand for anything else.

The European Union compelled Microsoft to develop a version of its OS
without Windows Media Player, so that end users would have the
possibility of installing Windows without a media player and then
selecting a media player of their own. To date, nobody has yet bought
a copy of this special version of Windows, which makes one wonder why
the EU bothered to mandate it.

Because they took it upon themselves to decide what the product and market
should be without considering the blindingly obvious that there's very
little incentive for anyone to pay the same amount for less, especially
when it's an optional component the user can chose to install or remove at
will.

 

[David Maynard]

To me (in the USA) it looks like the EU has a personal vendetta against MS.

Hating Microsoft is a popular pastime for a lot of people, not just the EU.

Even though the regular version of Windows comes with a Media Player,
there's
absolutely nothing preventing people from loading their own favorite and
having
that one be the default player for any and all media files. You never have
to see
MS Media Player at all if you don't want to.

All true but, the "remedy's" appearance notwithstanding, the real issue
isn't Windows Media Player, per see, but the server and media licensing end
of the game.

Everybody expects to make money, some how, sooner or later, and in the
'free media player' market it's on the server and licensing end. For
example, you can get a free Real Media player but the encoding package
costs money and it's the same with DivX, to name a couple. And even if you
want to write your own 'production' software the encoding must be licensed
as it's proprietary. The player being 'free' is simply to create demand for
the rest.

Now, since the licensing end costs money you, as a content
server/developer, might want to put your eggs in one basket rather than
fork money over to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who comes up with a
proprietary protocol/codec and there's the rub: which one to pick? Well,
'most popular' might be one way of choosing and every XP system comes with
Media Player.

And there's your complaint. How can a media developer even hope to be
'popular' enough to compete with something that, by default, comes with
every system? Sure, the user can download yours for 'free' but they need do
nothing at all to get Windows Media Player.

The counter argument is to offer something 'better'.

Btw, 'free players' isn't the only battle ground. There's standards
committees and other fronts. For example, MPEG-2 because it's the DVD standard.

The EU ruling appears nonsensical because they expect the user actually
gives a tinker's dam about any of that and, further, is demented enough to
intentionally reject something that's free. You can buy one with Media
Player or, for the same price, one without. Now there's a tough decision to
make.

It seems like the EU makes up
rules
and when MS complies, the EU adds MORE rules onto that so MS is still out of
compliance. If I was MS, I'd pull out of Europe all together until they get
their
act together.

Not likely with the money you can make even when complying. And even if
your only motive were to 'screw them, to hell with the money,' you'd be
giving them what they wanted in the first place: you out of the media
content market.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Because they took it upon themselves to decide what the product and market
should be without considering the blindingly obvious that there's very
little incentive for anyone to pay the same amount for less, especially
when it's an optional component the user can chose to install or remove at
will.

It reflects the lack of market freedom in Europe and the backwardness
of the Continent with respect to technology.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




It reflects the lack of market freedom in Europe and the backwardness
of the Continent with respect to technology.

You sure? Sounds a lot like the U.S. browser suit redux.

 

[Mxsmanic]

You sure? Sounds a lot like the U.S. browser suit redux.

The Europeans are considerably worse. They understand the technology
even less, they suspect Microsoft even more, and they are far less
willing to let market forces work unmolested.