another microsoft gem


I read this first over at the Wall Street Journal but then found a CNET article on it.

Last year Microsoft actually lost a court case, against the EU, for predatory practices (sounds like something from the Discovery Channel, doesn't it?) in the market for media players/formats. Essentially the EU forced Microsoft to distribute Windows without forcing Windows Media Player to be bundled with it, essentially allowing customers to choose.

So what did MS do? It said "fine". Then it went and called this product "Windows XP Reduced Media Edition". Then it also removed the ability to do some basic things, such as playing music CDs (something that even Windows 95 could do).

If you are a consumer, and are offered, for the same price, a machine with "Windows XP Home Edition" and another with "Windows XP Reduced Media Edition", which one are you gonna get? I can hear the Shadow-like laugh in the background when the MS representative says (in the article) "We believe this name complies with the commission's orders".

You know, it's stuff like this that pisses people off about Microsoft. Maybe you could argue that it's MS's "Darwinian" attitude that allows it to post record profits and market gains, even when most in the tech industry consider it passé.

But isn't there a point when MS just has to say, "okay guys, we've misbehaved, how do we make things better?" instead of fighting tooth and nail for every single tiny scrap of whatever. I have stated more than once here that Microsoft's desktop monopoly is not necessarily illegal in itself, it's the predatory practices and the illegal actions taken to maintain and defend that monopoly that are the problem (sadly, it's also in question whether the monopology would have gotten this far without those illegal actions). Maybe if MS started to differentiate the monopoly itself and what they do to maintain it, then things would get better, don't you think?

No, I'm not holding my breath. But hey, it's Saturday morning. I thought it was Friday. Let's give the lad some leeway.

Bonus: a post from November 2003, where I wonder if WinFS will be delayed again ("never say never" eh?), some more day-dreaming about MS embracing, or at least not actively attacking, the Web (sure), and some Descartes thrown in for good measure.

Categories: technology
Posted by diego on January 29 2005 at 12:55 PM | TrackBack (0)
Comments (please see the comments & trackback policy).

I think that some business may actually prefer a "Windows Reduced Media Edition" if there is one that is a stripped-down XP Pro. Why?

a) Some vulnerabilities were reported in Windows Media Files (WMV) and some viruses do exploit those holes to spread themselves. A Windows without Media Player is more secure than one with it.

b) Some hardline managers may think that "employees will be more productive if they can't look at videos or listen to audio CDs at work: they would spend time working instead of listening to pirated MP3 or browsing the internet for porn videos".

Posted by: Roberto at February 2, 2005 5:42 PM

Right, because other companies are saints and would never try and think up a way to get around a court order? I am not defending Microsoft but they aren't the only system-abusers.

Posted by: Paul Watson at February 4, 2005 11:26 PM

Roberto: Then Microsoft should be selling that product in the US, shouldn't it?

Paul: Microsoft is not *any* company. As a monopolist (and I've repeatedly stated that a monopoly by itself is not illegal, just what you do with it), it has more responsibilities than others. And it has also ran around the courts many more times than any other company in the tech industry in recent years. So, sorry, but the "everybody does it" line just doesn't cut it.

If you'd like to continue this line of argument, please provide an example of another company with 50 billion dollars of cash in the bank, monopolies in 2 crucial markets, that keeps raking in record profits, etc, that has also repeatedly circumvented court orders from both the European commission and the US DoJ (remember when they were ordered to remove IE and they presented a copy of windows that didn't work to the Judge).

Posted by: Diego at February 5, 2005 11:06 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?







Copyright © Diego Doval 2002-2007.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.35