And now comes the really big issue, the stripping down of windows from WMP. The howls of pain was heard to Europe and back "Why?! GOD WHY?!". The answer is, as usual, not easy. Let's start by saying that the decision of stripping WMP from the core OS has some reasons to exist and it has to do with both the position of MS in the market and on some basical mechanism of competition and software production. Let's examine them one at time.
The commission noted that the WMP's power was overwhelming in face off other player's, like, let's say, Real audio, or Quicktime, that still hold some kind of the video and audio streaming market share, but surely more marginal than the overwhelming WMP. The commission stated that the WMP's position was this strong and was growing that stronger that it surely menaced to push out concurrence from the market and install an effective monopoly in the field of live multimedia offer.
Why should one choose WMP? This is exactly the point of the commission. THEY DO NOT choose it, because WMP is automatically installed with the OS. This, far from being a plus, it is a minus for the customer, because, even if not actually stopping the subject to use another player (paying or free) it impairs his real decision.
Let's explain this with another metaphor. Let's say that you buy a house and as a plus the seller gives you a car with it. Nothing wrong with it at all. Let's say that this house looks like a fire fighter's base and so you'd like your car to be red with chromed details. Said, done, you have your car, and each of the new buyer of home from that house seller have this combo of themed house/car following their taste and wishes. Now the question is, if there was the possibility to have another car, that answer your requests in a similar way, both in aesthetics and in mechanics, and let's assume for the sake of the example that you even could have it for free, would you get it? You already have one mind you, so you may be interested in another one only if the qualities of the latter car were overwhelmingly better than the original car or met some specific desires and needs of you.
For a percentage of user the trouble of getting another car may be worth the try, but the legal assessment of the commission is that a large portion of the average users wouldn't be interested in another media player because they already have one that already does all the basic operations required and more, so, the hassle of finding another one, downloading it or getting it from somewhere else, installing it, taking the risk that it may destroy some system's unknown balance may really not be worth the risk.
Worst than that the commission evidenced that WMP is the main troop of MS in the battle for media streaming. Media streaming technology that could bring, in the near future, to the real possibility to just look at a movie or hear a complete concert live from your home on your desktop. So, that said, if WMP is bundled with the OS and everything that was said before applies, why should Joe Average get another player? Look, we are speaking of WMP here, a program that, aside from all considerations, is GOOD. I still believe there is better, but where else do you find a player that does live streaming, video playing, video and audio encoding and CD ripping all in one combo and given free with the OS on top of that? Thus the commission decided that to re equilibrate things the WMP has to be stripped out from the Windows OS within a period of 90 days. Microsoft has to offer the stripped version on a paritary level as the non stripped one, meaning that it must be commercially valuable to offer it to customer (ie: cheaper or better packed or with lesser bug) and there must be a real interest in choosing the stripped version instead of the classical one.
Mind that the decision, in reality, does not change immensely the way things are done; customers that buy a computer with preinstalled OS have just to specify if they want or not the WMP in it, but if they choose to, the matter is settled. If they buy the computer without OS (or with OS bundled but not installed) they are free to choose the Windows version with or without WMP. It's just a matter of responsible choice.
Now let's see why the decision of stripping the WMP from the OS.
As someone has evidenced, stripping down the WMP might not be the wisest thing to do, because it blocks some features that with XP has been offered to the public, like the automatic preview of video files on thumbnail and the sound preview of audio on mouse pass. There are definite fears about the real possibility of actually stripping the WMP out of the frame of Windows (possibility that MS denies from the beginning). The latter problem has been solved by Real, that in front of Judges in November showed for testing a retroengineered version of Windows that offered Real player instead of WMP and WORKED.
The first problem is in reality a false problem, because the media system of Windows is only loosely bound to the media ability of the OS. Let's put it that way. You install an other player, like, let's say, Bsplayer. Let's say that you set the player as default player, and, finally, let's say that you open a streaming WMA (which is supported by Bsplayer), what happens? Simply that, if you have the basic installation without service pack of Windows, the OS uses the media player to play it, even if the default player is another one. Two conclusion has to be taken from that fact.
-The first is that WMP is THE player and the matter is settled, thus the decision of the commission makes a perfect sense, because no matter what the customer chooses, WMP will be used in the end.
-The second is that WMP has to be stripped off from the OS to permit real competition in the field of streaming media; why you say? Let's put it this way: let's say that you are a webmaster of a site that offers live media of any kind you could like (let say porn, just to render my article less boring) and you have to encode each months a fair amount of video for streaming.
You, being what Marx called a "good capitalist", have interest in reaching the largest audience of customers possible, so you will encode in each media format you can have notice off, so that each of the customer can be satisfied.
Logically the time at your disposition is not endless, thus you'll have to encode in the more codecs possible that are the most popular around (even the good capitalist has schedules, and encoding in "Uncle-Pino-media" just for the sake of the only customer that you have that uses that crappy player isn't worth the hassle).
So tell me, with it's 90% or so of audience in the WORLD having installed WMP, WHICH type of streaming protocol do you think our beloved webmaster will use? Proof it is that I find less and less sites that uses Real or Quicktime in face of WMA and WMV. Unbundling the WMP is thus the perfect and logical solution to this question, it is feasible and will permit a loophole for competitors that will compete in the market.
Logically it is not a simple answer, because I'm aware that there are libraries that lies dormant under the GUI of WMP and that ARE needed to make the media part of Windows work.
Sure, but the problem is right there, standardization may be a good thing, it surely helps the customer as much as the programmer, but standardization is good in the measure in which it is part of a collective agreement and not as part of a monopolistic imposition. Think to Direct-X. Every game uses Direct-X, because they are the surest way to make the game work, but the fact it that they will work UNDER WINDOWS.
Sure, direct -X are standard, they are free and everyone may have them. Three cheers for them, but the fact is that they bind the game to the Windows platform and if the producer had to write the game for another system, the first thing to do would be to strip out the Direct-X protocol. Same goes for Media players, if I want a player to do the same as WMP, I do not have the choice but to use the limitations of Microsoft's protocols, but hey, they are free aren't they? Well, an old Italian saying tells us that "The devil always wants his share" and you can well see where I'm heading here.
An acute remark was made to me about this decision and it stated that it would have been smarter to simply force MS to open the specs to everyone and this would have really hit MS for good. No, sorry, it may seem so, but if you read till here (and I do not think, because bore has surely killed you on the road) you understand very well that opening the specs would have fortified MS because in the end the protocols that would have been used are THEIRS! That would have been the hit of the century, can you imagine it? EVERYTHING running on Windows protocols! I can hear Ballmer gurgling in pleasure...
- "EU punishes MS, Page 1/4"
- "EU punishes MS, Page 2/4"
- "EU punishes MS, Page 3/4"
- "EU punishes MS, Page 4/4"
