“Microsoft and the European Commission have agreed the software giant can sell a stripped-down version of its Windows operating system under the name ‘Windows XP Home Edition N,’ Microsoft says,” Reuters reports. “Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s associate general counsel for Europe, said the name had been suggested by the European Union’s executive after it rejected 10 suggestions by Microsoft. The Commission ruled last year Microsoft had used its near-monopoly to crush competition, and ordered the software maker to sell a version of Windows without its multimedia player, but the two clashed over a suitable name that would not put off consumers.”
Reuters reports, “The Commission’s order is meant to allow computer makers to buy alternative software to play films and music, instead of Microsoft’s Windows Media Player, from RealNetworks, Apple and others.”
Full article here.
Get QuickTime here.
Why didn’t Microsoft just call it “Windows XP Basic Edition”?
first post (me hopes)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue laugh” style=”border:0;” />
Here are the top 5 Rejected Names…
5) Windows XP The EU Sucks Edition
4) Windows XP The Ashley Simpson Edition (No Talent or Musical Ability)
3) Windows XP Still Sucks Edition
2) Windows 98
1) Windows XP What Will We Get Sued For Next? Edition
2 Questions:
1- If they later install Windows Media Player, will the XP client software treat all media players the same, or be as 3rd party unfriendly as ‘regular’ XP?
2- Windows XP Open Media Edition sounds better.
The best version of Windows that I can remember was Windows RG (Really Good) Edition.
Here is a demo of this wonderful and feature rich product;
http://www.lagmonster.org/humor/windowsrg.html
I think it is stupid how the EU and US are handling MS’s monolpoly. It’s not the media player, stupid. It’s the distribution strong-arm tactics of preventing PC makers from selling competitive operating systems.
Intel won’t let Dell sell AMD for some reason. These are anti-competitve tactics. It would be equally rediculous if the US government told Intel they could no longer use hyperthreading as punishment.
I think it is stupid how the EU and US are handling MS’s monolpoly. It’s not the media player, stupid. It’s the distribution strong-arm tactics of preventing PC makers from selling competitive operating systems.
You’re right on the money Hazard’s Dad…
This article hits the nail on the head technically speaking;
http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/
Of course. Anytime you get the government involved they always bark up the wrong tree. It doesn’t matter if it’s the EU or the US, government intervention into business matters is almost always a bad idea because they’re all idiots.
DakRoland,
Wow, check out my post on Insanely Great Mac. Very similar to yours.
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=4603
RealityCheck wrote:
“Of course. Anytime you get the government involved they always bark up the wrong tree. It doesn’t matter if it’s the EU or the US, government intervention into business matters is almost always a bad idea because they’re all idiots.”
Yeah, we’d all be much better off by letting huge corporations like Wal-Mart and Microsoft run the world.
Think about the idiotic government next time you use a public street, when your trash gets taken away, when you flush the toilet, when you take a plane trip without being hijacked, etc., etc., etc. You take it all for granted.
Reality Check,
If the government doesn’t get involved with business practices, companies would choke competition to a point where there no longer would be any growth in the markets whatsoever and this would be bad for everyone. If the government did not use its power to break up monopolies probably none of us would have cell phones (they wouldn’t have been invented), and we’d all be paying a hell of a lot more for a variety of products, and those products would be inferior. Apple probably would not exist, either. This is the real reality check.
Gspank called it. Some level of government regulation is an economic necessity. Have a look at what federal de-regulation did for the airline industry, or for the price of electricity in California…
Better known as:
“Edition Neutered”
Neither XP nor anything recognizable.
But the Big problem is, the new version won’t be ready until 2009, as everyone is still working on ‘Longorn’
How are M$’s tactics any different than Apple’s in exploiting market share to increase market share? Songs from Apple’s ITMS will only work on Ipods, no other Mp3 player. And Ipods will only play songs from ITMS and no other music store. That wouldn’t be as big a deal if Apple didn’t control the portable music player market. Consumers who want to use the most popular player have no choice but to use ITMS. If Apple controlled the OS market like they do Mp3 players, would their tactics be any different?
“Some level of government regulation is an economic necessity…”
Agree completely – but it was the government that ruined energy de-regulation in California. They limited the cost of energy to consumers, while the suppliers had to eat any other increased costs. A “Gray-Out” Davis autographed energy plan. Straight deregulation would have been better, in that case…
beeble, the difference is if you are on the side of Apple then an Apple monopoly is fine, however a Microsoft monopoly is not.
Apple apologist´s are blind to the Apple monopoly; coming up with a million reasons (which also apply to Microsoft or any other monopoly) as to why the Apple monopoly is good.
Isn´t the Apple OS a monopoly? The only one who can put it in their computers is Apple. With the Microsoft OS anyone can license it in a computer and sell it. You can´t do that with the monopoly Apple keeps on its OS.
(But that´s okay, right applefans?
I think the difference is that Apple produces all the hardware and software that they put on their machines.
They are not twisting the arms of vendors, like Microsoft does, to force them to include their browser or media player, in order for the vendors to obtain Windows.
monopoly
n 1: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; “a monopoly on silver”; “when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like”
Which is why we still have Apple computer. If MS had their way, they would have bought and/or killed Apple, but they needed Apple to avoid the “monopoly” charge. MS uses it’s desktop marketshare to destroy healthy competition (read: Netscape, etc. etc.) and to force inferior products on the consumer. Apple niether has monopoly power, nor does it have a history of using such bully tactics. I suppose you could specualte that if Apple had such a marketshare it would take the same opportunities, but my speculation is that it wouldn’t.
YES! The excuses for the “Apple monopoly is okay” are starting to roll in!
“They are not twisting the arms of vendors, like Microsoft does, to force them to include their browser or media player”
Uh…maybe its because there are NO vendors that can sell a computer with OSX in it…as in total monopoly on software and hardware by Apple.
“when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like”:
Uh…as in $139 for every update to OSX…
“They are not twisting the arms of vendors, like Microsoft does, to force them to include their browser or media player, in order for the vendors to obtain Windows.”
No, but they are certainly twisting the arms of consumers to buy Ipods and use ITMS. If a consumer wants to use the most popular mp3 player, he has no choice but to buy songs from Apple. And if he wants to buy songs from Apple, he has no choice but to use Ipod.
There is no difference between that and what M$ does in the OS market except that M$ abuses other vendors while Apple abuses its customer base directly.
“Apple niether has monopoly power, nor does it have a history of using such bully tactics. I suppose you could specualte that if Apple had such a marketshare it would take the same opportunities, but my speculation is that it wouldn’t.”
You don’t have to speculate. Apple may not have a monopoly in the OS market, but it certainly is getting there in the portable music player market. And they are already employing the exact same “bully” tactics that M$ uses.
Only the EU would come up with something so stupid and ignorant as Windows XP “N”
“Think about the idiotic government next time you use a public street, when your trash gets taken away, when you flush the toilet, when you take a plane trip without being hijacked, etc., etc., etc. You take it all for granted.”
Yeah, I think about that everyday. And the shitty job they have done at fixing the roads, “picking up my trash”, taking a plane trip ?, oh yeah, and what they do with MY SS Money and Tax dollars…Yeah, There not idiots, they are geniuses….
I personally like that the “N” stands for “Neutered”. That was a good one, Marcie88!
I thought the “N” was as a reminder of “Netscape”
Microsoft to vendors: “You can’t sell any other OS than MINE: got it? Or I’ll crush you”
Vendors to Apple: “Please, please, let us play the iTMS format, let our sw drive the iPod. And if you do not do it we’ll call you a monopoly and bribe judges to see it OUR way.”
Apple to vendors: “Huh? buzz off”
Whatever.
Apple manufactures the hardware AND the software. It is not forcing anyone to adopt its solutions. ON THE CONTRARY. A monopoly is when you FORCE your solutions on competitors because of your position on the market. THAT’s MICROSOFT.
Revise your definition of monopoly.
Apple with iPod market share is dictated by the fact the consumer CHOOSE to buy the iPod in spite of the plethora of other players in the market. Consumers do not buy the iPod because competitors do not have access to iTMS.
The iPod is not a monopoly because music service are NOT forced to use the iPod being it the #1 player.
ROFLMAO, they are instead all queueing trying to get on the wagon.
iTMS is not a monopoly because the other music players do NOT have to use it being it the only legal music store in the market.
The ABOVE would be a monopoly. You are confounding monopoly with market share based on being the best product.
If all others are crap and nobody wants them you do not become a monopoly because all people want is YOUR product.
You are a monopoly when because of your presence in the market you acts so NO OTHER PRODUCTS could survive WITHOUT USING YOUR PRODUCTS directly or indirectly.
Any business lawyer would laugh pretty hard at you silly calling Apple putting ITS sw on ITS hardware, or letting the iPod only work with iTMS a monopoly.
LOL
Apple is not forcing anyone adopting its solutions leveraging that on its position in the market. ROFLMAO: technically they are TOTALLY and BLATANTLY the OPPOSITE of what monopolistic actions are and go after.
A monopoly is when because of your position in the market you DICTATE adoption of your products and/or FORCE competitors to gobble up YOUR product instead of competitors’.
Apple is doing exactly the opposite. Still because it brings more money to its account but certainly it is no monopoly bullying action.
Now go back using that Rio of yours and fend the viruses when you download crappy quality music from wherever.
“And they are already employing the exact same “bully” tactics that M$ uses.”
So tell us all, when Apple, from its position in the market, is forcing competitors to:
a) use its music store, aka iTMS
b) use its DRM, aka fairplay
c) use its player, aka iPod
because, you see, THOSE would be the “exact same “bully” tactics that M$ uses”.
To this day, Apple is not forcing anyone use its solution, it is too busy keep them OFF THEIR BACKYARD.
Once again, Microsoft apologists confound PEE and CHAMPAIGN just because:
a) they both have bubbles
b) they both are yellowish
c) they both taste funny
MONOPOLY:
The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity;
the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in
some article, or of trading in some market;
So, by your own twisted understanding of monopoly, FORD would be a monopoly because HONDA is not allowed to sell FORD best model.
SOME article is “MUSIC PLAYER” not iPod, simpletons.
SOME market is “MUSIC DOWNLOAD SERVICE” not iTMS, dumbasses.
You see: Apple iPod is forced to use Apple iTMS, and iTMS is forced to only use and support the iPod.
Soooo, Apple is coercing Apple in using its products by means of its leading position in the market.
We need the US and EU government to follow up and make Apple stop its bullying practices on Apple. The Apple iPod should be allowed to use other music downloading services and not suffer from Apple to use Apple products. And the iTMS should be free to support other music player and not suffer from bully actions from Apple iPod and be restrained to only support it.
Apple, STOP your MONOPOLISTIC actions against Apple. And Apple, why don’t you bring Apple to court and force Apple not to use only Apple products but free to use other services and support other music players.
Oops, wait, I only have been able to use Apple brand name: WHERE ARE THE OTHER COMPETITORS FORCED TO USE APPLE TECHNOLOGY ?????????????
BZZZ, does not compute. Scratch that ‘monopoly’ thing altogether.
beeble:
“No, but they are certainly twisting the arms of consumers to buy Ipods and use ITMS. If a consumer wants to use the most popular mp3 player, he has no choice but to buy songs from Apple. And if he wants to buy songs from Apple, he has no choice but to use Ipod.”
Not true when you say ‘no choice’. iPod users can buy songs from any other online store, rip the songs to CD, transfer to iPod via iTunes OR they can use iTMS which will do the same job in less steps with what is often described in the press and by users the world over as the “best online experience” for purchasing music. Again, if consumers wants to purchase songs from Apple’s iTMS, he or she does have a choice to use a media player other than an iPod, again by ripping to CD and then transferring via another jukebox program to the alternative media player.
Once again, they have the choice, using Mac or PC, Apple simply offer the easiest method since they have developed a complete solution incorporating the player (iPod), the jukebox program (iTunes) and the store (iTunes Music Store), whereas competitors only put together at most two pieces of a fully-functional system (eg MS’ jukebox – Media Player & MS’ store – MSN Music).
Contrast this with the Microsoft monopoly – as Coop put it above:
“I think the difference is that Apple produces all the hardware and software that they put on their machines.
They are not twisting the arms of vendors, like Microsoft does, to force them to include their browser or media player, in order for the vendors to obtain Windows.”
Apple don’t force users to buy iPods to use the iTMS, and neither do they force users to use iTMS if they buy iPods. Again, Reuters reports, “The Commission’s order is meant to allow computer makers to buy alternative software to play films and music, instead of Microsoft’s Windows Media Player, from RealNetworks, Apple and others.” Apple doesn’t actively prevent use of alternatives, whereas Microsoft has always tried to – that’s the difference.