- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The EU recently ordered that Microsoft offer a version of Windows XP that didn’t have Windows Media Player because it was unfair to rival media players that Microsoft bundled its own media player with windows. Microsoft is calling it “Windows XP: Reduced Media Edition.”
(http://news.com.com/Microsoft+readies+scaled-back+Windows/2100-1016_3-5501485.html?tag=nl)“In addition to lacking a copy of Windows Media Player, the new version of Windows won’t be able to do things like play a CD or MP3 file or transfer music to a portable device–at least not without additional software from another company. Among the limited media features that do remain are the ability to play .wav files using Sound Recorder as well as a moviemaking program that is separate from Windows Media Player.”
Now, I find this stupid. It doesn’t benefit anyone except companies who want more money. Most other players suck and people who end up using others are going to have a painful experience with music. The fact that people are going to need to go online to get a media player is a pain in the ass. It just shows that Real Networks is using childish and cheap ways of becoming populer because Real Player itself sucks and they lack the talent to create one that is of reasonable quality. Anyone else agree with me on all this?
Of course, but most people are already customed to WMP, so it doesn’t matter if the OS comes with Media Player or not — people choose to upgrade WMP to 10, why switch to Real when you can just download Media Player again?
Microsoft loose? Nah.. Microsoft NEVER looses. 😀
I agree, its riddiculus what is to stop someone from going to microsoft.com and downloading it? Really I don’t think it will be benificial to other companies. Also do major companies (like Dell, HP, Gateway ect, where the common user buy their PC) even have to have it as a selection for their PCs? And I am pretty sure the majority of PC users buy their PC from stores that have them preconfigured and most will have standard windows
Yes, most manufacturers that purchases OEM licenses for Windows XP throw Real Player, Winamp AND Quick Time (but not every time) in.
In my opinion, Real Networks only started this when Gaum complained that Microsoft put Windows Messenger on Windows, and that hurt their revenues. Heard of Gaum? Probably not.. and that is their excuse. *sigh* But I guess that is how marketing works right? Allow a company to make millions of their products, and then sue them.
i still dont understand why microsoft cannot bundle its software with its OS. its THEIR system, let them put whatever they want in it. unless eliminating wmp reduces the cost significantly, which i’m guessing it doesnt, what’s the point? i have wmp, but i almost never use it, so what does that say for the EU? of course i’m not a complete idiot like the majority of computer users, in that i can think for myself and can choose to find software of better quality elsewhere.
Tigerblade wrote:i still dont understand why microsoft cannot bundle its software with its OS. its THEIR system, let them put whatever they want in it.I will explain.Microsoft has basically achieved a monopoly position in the software industry. This is not because their software is so great, this is because of excellent marketing. Microsoft has a lot of products available: Windows, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, et cetera. Microsoft bundled all the software together to get an even stronger monopoly position on the software market.
People get an operating system with everything preinstalled and everything ready to go. While this may seem good, it’s actually a very bad thing. It means the end user will not learn about any other possibilities. Most people look strange at me when I mention things as Linux, WinAMP or even the Opera web browser. This is where the unfairness comes in.
It’s not fair if an operating system basically ‘forces’ users to use certain products. Windows does this. A good example of a ‘fair’ OS is RedHat Fedora Core Linux, which comes by default with five webbrowsers, seven mail clients, three media players and hundreds of games and screensavers. Why not? It gives the end user a chance to make up their mind and decide “Hey! Software X works so much better than software Y!”
The whole goal behind this is to destroy Microsoft their monopoly position, because that is what isn’t fair to rival companies. They have the biggest market share for operating system – fine. But it’s not fair to bundle the operating system with all their other products so they easily capture the other markets too. Sure it’s smart marketing – but it’s not fair. 🙂
Just this “…the new version of Windows won’t be able to do things like play a CD or MP3 file or transfer music to a portable device…” makes it not worth buying. Who would actually want that? Even though Microsoft may seem like a monopoly, which to many it does, this is a worthless effort by EU. All is fair in business, it’s usually survival of the fittest, and Microsoft has the finances to ensure that. Like it or not, Microsoft will keep being on top.
DJHyperbyte wrote:I will explain.Microsoft has basically achieved a monopoly position in the software industry. This is not because their software is so great, this is because of excellent marketing. Microsoft has a lot of products available: Windows, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, et cetera. Microsoft bundled all the software together to get an even stronger monopoly position on the software market.
People get an operating system with everything preinstalled and everything ready to go. While this may seem good, it’s actually a very bad thing. It means the end user will not learn about any other possibilities. Most people look strange at me when I mention things as Linux, WinAMP or even the Opera web browser. This is where the unfairness comes in.
It’s not fair if an operating system basically ‘forces’ users to use certain products. Windows does this. A good example of a ‘fair’ OS is RedHat Fedora Core Linux, which comes by default with five webbrowsers, seven mail clients, three media players and hundreds of games and screensavers. Why not? It gives the end user a chance to make up their mind and decide “Hey! Software X works so much better than software Y!”
The whole goal behind this is to destroy Microsoft their monopoly position, because that is what isn’t fair to rival companies. They have the biggest market share for operating system – fine. But it’s not fair to bundle the operating system with all their other products so they easily capture the other markets too. Sure it’s smart marketing – but it’s not fair. 🙂
Most people who use computers aren’t going to care what plays their music as long as it plays, and if they are forced to go get one, its really going to bother them. WMP is not that bad of a player. Even though I don’t use it, its still nice, and probably better then alot of media jukeboxes out there.
I was reading on Neowin an article someone posted on their blogger in which the person stated why FireFox would never dominate over Internet Explorer. It said that, “People don’t care how they get to the internet. They just know they have to doubleclick on the blue ‘E’ on their desktop and that the internet will open.” This is much the same situation. An operating system should come installed with everything a user needs to carry out basic productivity on a computer. A media player is one of those things.
I do think that RedHat has the good way of doing it. Microsoft should just stick multiple MP3 players on their system rather than get rid of all of them all together. So I agree, that would be the best way. Or better yet, Microsoft should make it so when you first install windows that you are provided a list of media players and you choose one to use from there.
Someguy03 wrote:Microsoft should just stick multiple MP3 players on their system rather than get rid of all of them all together. So I agree, that would be the best way. Or better yet, Microsoft should make it so when you first install windows that you are provided a list of media players and you choose one to use from there.But Microsoft does not want this, because this could mean they lose their monopoly position on the software market. So the EU is looking for other ways to make Microsoft’s position on the software market less dominating.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.