Rather appropriately as I was moaning about CarTalk switching from RealAudio format to Microsoft, there is an article on slash discussing Reals fall from grace, and even quoting CarTalk and why they dropped Real in favour of Microsoft...
Anyhow with any luck the EU will force MS to remove their MediaPlayer from Windows, which won't make any difference to their monopoly, but at least it will encourage a few Windows users the opportunity to try something better.
I tried mplayer that some kind soul mentioned, however it segfaulted like mad, so I've given up on that for a while - if it worked mplayer looks good on paper though.
Re:Windows Media Player
ajt on 2004-03-09T10:25:50
Apparently MPlayer will play Windows media files, and if you build on an x86 platform, you can even use various "Windows" codecs directly from their DLLs. So far trying to use MPlayer for Debian stable from debs, resulted in a multitude of Segfaults, and I've not tried to build from scratch yet.
I suppose it's one of my pet hates, but why do media players all have stupid graphic interfaces? with silly skins that make them terrible to use. The early ones were okay, but these days they all do it, and it's a RealPain. All I want to do is play a CD, Ogg or MPEG file......
Will look at vlc it looks simple but feature complete.
Re:Troll.
ajt on 2004-03-09T12:06:06
Their official reason are: Real is unreliable; Real trick people into buying their product, when they only wanted the "free" version, and WMP is free and installed by default so what could be simpler?
I've never found Real to be unreliable, their web pages are awful to navigate to get at the free version, and they do provide a version for Linux - something Microsoft don't. The fact that WMP only runs on some version of Windows, it comes free only in a $100 bundle, and it's not available on any other operating system at all, must have slipped their minds...
While I can see the humour in your post, on a more serious level, I think this is another victory for the convicted monopolist, partially caused by an own goal from the competition....
Re:Troll.
brian_d_foy on 2004-03-09T12:25:04
The free version of Real Player is a pain in the ass to get, indeed. I know it is there and have trouble getting to it with each new version.
As for unreliable, I am not sure what they mean by that. CarTalk is the biggest selling public radio, so they should have the scratch to pay for reliable hardware, but that may not be the case. Who knows?
I do know that WBEZ (Chicago) pays $100,000 each year to provide the Real stream of This American Life. I assume that since CarTalk is more popular, it costs a lot more for them.Re:Troll.
ajt on 2004-03-09T13:02:26
I think Real do them selves quite a disservice by hiding the free version, and pushing the paid version. I'm quite happy to pay for something if I think it's a good buy, I've bought Opera and Eudora in the past, but, the in your face behaviour of Real is a real turn off.
I've never had problems with Real, only compatibility problems when the server is a generation ahead of the client, but you can get that problem from anything. There was a lot of bitching on Slash about Real, but I don't know how much of that means anything, you know what Slash is like...?
I didn't know CarTalk was that popular, so they should have a decent budget, by NPR/PBS standards, for a decent server and bandwidth. I know here in the UK, the BBC have thrown rather a lot of cash at their web service, all still Real based I believe - though I gather that they have streamed Ogg with great success, if only in pilot tests.
MPR don't seem to have any problem streaming PHC over Real either, and it's a 2 hour show, and they have a large back catalogue too!.
Re:Color me stupid, but....
ajt on 2004-03-09T14:11:11
I agree that Real have shot themselves in the foot, with various underhand and annoying antics. They do deserve a slap in the face for that, and they will either learn or go bust.
Microsoft's bundling of their media player is quite different from a manufacturer installing a radio in a car and selling it to you. First off you don't need a special "Ford" tuner to listen to special "Ford" radio stations, that other radios are unable to tune to. Second, "Ford" don't produce a new radio that can't be retrofitted to and older "Ford", forcing you to buy a new car when you want to listen to your favourite station..
Ford buys an OEM version of a radio from someone who can give them a good deal. You are quite free to use it, or replace it, and the car still works fine, and you can listen to any radio station you want, with either their radio or any other third party model. Ford have no axe to grind in selling radio stations their transmitters, so they don't care about your radio, they only want you to pay for it.
I'm not saying that removing WMP from Windows will do much, but it may help to prevent a convicted monopolist from using one monopoly to create another one. Windows Media Player is tied to some versions of one operating systems, currently in a monopoly position, so that MS can sell server software, and by excluding other platforms make them unattractive - maintaing the monopoly. Lots of companies do this, it's normal dirty business practice, however most companies aren't monopolies.
Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such the rules change. They fought long and hard to get their monopoly, and while some people were stupid enough to let them get there, others didn't but were still destroyed, and as a result better technologies and products have scrapped because of a monopoly.
Moving towards a monopoly is a natural process in business, but it's bad for consumers, and bad for business - eventually even the monopolist suffers. Most countries have laws to prevent this from happening, and Microsoft has been found guilt of breaking these laws in some countries. While removing WMP may be too little and too late, it may help.
Monopoly...???
Sifmole on 2004-03-09T15:14:37
mo·nop·o·ly Audio pronunciation of monopoly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-l)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3.
1. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
2. A commodity or service so controlled.
4.
1. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
2. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
Last I checked there are several options for Operating Systems, Word processors, Spreadsheets, Media players, browsers, etc, etc, etc. So where is Microsoft's "exclusive" control? I have never understood this either. Is there another definition of "monopoly" that I am not familiar with? Does it mean, "really big, too successfull a company with practices that are questionable and an often sub-standard product"?Re:Monopoly...???
ajt on 2004-03-09T16:23:44
I don't care what the dictionary says, Microsoft has been convicted in a court of law of breaking various anti-monopoly laws. These laws are there to prevent and regulate monopolies. Okay the punishment was a joke, but they were still convicted.
Last time I looked in a shop, I could have any PC I wanted as long as it had Microsoft Windows on. Most users, most of the time have no choice, you get Windows or Windows. I know you can buy another kind of computer, and Mac seems to be be doing well for a change, but in effect you can have only Windows. As too office software, there is MS Office or MS Works, I know that there are alternatives, but in practice they don't add up to much market share.
Most countries recognise monopolies when market share exceeds some level, and at over 90%+ I think you'd say Microsoft has a Monopoly on the desktop, Office software, web browser, and so on. Also you can see that a monopoly in one area, say the desktop, helps when you are trying to establish a monopoly in another one, say the browser.
I accept that in many areas Microsoft were given their monoploy by poor competition, but in some areas they took a poor product, and by bundling it with an existing monopoly product were able to kill off or seriously hurt the competition. Think product dumping.
Imagine that there is one maufacturer of TVs, you can get a Linux TV, but over 95% of TVs are Microsoft. I create a DVD player to use the Microsoft TV, and start to sell them. Microsoft add a DVD player to every TV they make - for free, I go bust. There are anti-dumping and anti-bundling laws, plus adding new hard bits has a manufacturing cost - not so in software
I don't think that breaking WMP off from Windows will do much good in reality, but it will give the media playing competition a level playing field to do business in. In practice Microsoft will give inside help to their product, and most users will blindly install a "Microsoft product" as it "will work better with a Micrososft Operating system", but some won't.
I do admire Microsoft for building up their empire, you can't fault them for commercial sucess, especially given the poor quality of their code. However they are a monopoly now, and they are hurting other companies just because they are a monopoly.
