Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
RealNetworks Files Suit Against Microsoft
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the point that was made was that WMP is no more integrated into the windows as QT is on MacOS X
Finances?
There could be a good chance that Real are clutching at straws here. Money doesn't last forever, particularly when you make software few people use.
A couple of years ago Real One was the big deal for them - it would be fair to speculate that not everything went to plan.
I don't know their bottom line, but it seems few people are overly happy with their product.
In any case, perhaps the Real kitty is a little light, and they may need law suit with precedents to fill it up and add a little value for shareholders.
There could be a good chance that Real are clutching at straws here. Money doesn't last forever, particularly when you make software few people use.
A couple of years ago Real One was the big deal for them - it would be fair to speculate that not everything went to plan.
I don't know their bottom line, but it seems few people are overly happy with their product.
In any case, perhaps the Real kitty is a little light, and they may need law suit with precedents to fill it up and add a little value for shareholders.
When your enemies are fighting each other, its best not to disturb them.
Don't like Real (which has the threat potential of a gnat), don't like MS (obvious reasons).
'nuff said.
Don't like Real (which has the threat potential of a gnat), don't like MS (obvious reasons).
'nuff said.
Which if you think about it makes it all the more ridiculous. The real lemmings are the peecee weenies that, the majority of (and I know because I've talked to many at length) simply by a Windblows machine because "well everyone else buys them" or the masses of ignorant Americas (see dictionary for redundant) who think Macs only run graphics programs, wont work with the internet (not only heard that, overheard a ChumpUSA sales shmuck telling these old people in the Mac section this), etc. etc. etc. Mac Zealots tend to be smarter, made educated decisions to buy their machines. The true lemmings are jumping into the deep, dark, cold, and raw sewage filled water that is Microsloth.
Mac OS X...
can run without QT Player, you don't need the app to run your mac, but I'm pretty sure you need the QT core, the layer between Darwin and the GUI, that's a different thing, but still darwin can live without the QT layer, I guess, the layer is the what lets you see the previews in Finder, play iTunes... etc... but I guess by MS, WMP is the whole thing, a mini program, a baby version which lets you preview the multimedia files in the OS, and the player is an adult version with a GUI and that's all... I have to say about that...
... am I right?
can run without QT Player, you don't need the app to run your mac, but I'm pretty sure you need the QT core, the layer between Darwin and the GUI, that's a different thing, but still darwin can live without the QT layer, I guess, the layer is the what lets you see the previews in Finder, play iTunes... etc... but I guess by MS, WMP is the whole thing, a mini program, a baby version which lets you preview the multimedia files in the OS, and the player is an adult version with a GUI and that's all... I have to say about that...
... am I right?
Yeah, I believe that the QT codec is a part of the QE foundation, so it is very much integrated to the GUI of OS X.
Swifts not that Swift
Swift Said:
"The point is not that "QuickTime is integrated into the Mac OS," because it is. So is Safari, Webcore, Quartz, and any number of apps and facilities. But it's a snap to install Real, Windows Media 9 for Mac OS X, VLC, DiVX, ffmpeg, etc., and all kinds of other players, codecs and the like. Apple makes it easy, because they use MP4, which is an open standard, as well as many other well-known, understood formats. QuickTime Streaming Server is open. None of the smoke and haze of Windows Media 9."
Swift my man you are not a mac user are you?
Ok first things first, QuickTime is not integrated into the OS, why is this? Simple answer, its a product that is designed to run under Aqua not UNIX. You can install it, remove it, what ever you want. You also have to understand the word integrated To make into a whole by bringing all parts together; unify. Now you dont need QuickTime to have you Mac run, QuickTime only allows you to view files that require QuickTime. You also made a BIG BIG BIG error by saying Safari in integrated, because it is 100% NOT. You want to know why? Because it was made way after OS X hit the field, it is an app that you can delete with NO affects on the OS what so ever. Sheesh people do research before you talk, good lord.
If I seem harsh thats because I am, Im sick and tired of People saying that Apple is just as bit as bad then Microsoft just not as BIG, you have got to be kidding. Apple for one used on OPEN Source OS for its platform, how much unlike MS can you get? I mean come on, I found things that are made just for UNIX or Linux that run under X11 just fine, can you do that on MS, HELL NO.
Keep in mind that I work on both Macintosh and MS computer systems, I know who is better in what and why. Just drives me nuts, windows weenies are all blinded.
Ok, no more, Im going to get yelled by a lot of people about this so let the fun begin
Swift Said:
"The point is not that "QuickTime is integrated into the Mac OS," because it is. So is Safari, Webcore, Quartz, and any number of apps and facilities. But it's a snap to install Real, Windows Media 9 for Mac OS X, VLC, DiVX, ffmpeg, etc., and all kinds of other players, codecs and the like. Apple makes it easy, because they use MP4, which is an open standard, as well as many other well-known, understood formats. QuickTime Streaming Server is open. None of the smoke and haze of Windows Media 9."
Swift my man you are not a mac user are you?
Ok first things first, QuickTime is not integrated into the OS, why is this? Simple answer, its a product that is designed to run under Aqua not UNIX. You can install it, remove it, what ever you want. You also have to understand the word integrated To make into a whole by bringing all parts together; unify. Now you dont need QuickTime to have you Mac run, QuickTime only allows you to view files that require QuickTime. You also made a BIG BIG BIG error by saying Safari in integrated, because it is 100% NOT. You want to know why? Because it was made way after OS X hit the field, it is an app that you can delete with NO affects on the OS what so ever. Sheesh people do research before you talk, good lord.
If I seem harsh thats because I am, Im sick and tired of People saying that Apple is just as bit as bad then Microsoft just not as BIG, you have got to be kidding. Apple for one used on OPEN Source OS for its platform, how much unlike MS can you get? I mean come on, I found things that are made just for UNIX or Linux that run under X11 just fine, can you do that on MS, HELL NO.
Keep in mind that I work on both Macintosh and MS computer systems, I know who is better in what and why. Just drives me nuts, windows weenies are all blinded.
Ok, no more, Im going to get yelled by a lot of people about this so let the fun begin
The gripe is not having the WMP codec running in the background of Windows but del. the actual WMP player. Gates stated you can not do this or Xp will not work. I know I couldn't about 6 month ago.
Real may stink but WMP stinks worse.
Why do I have to compromise the OS just to del. a app. I want to replace with something else.
No one should be punished for del. a app. or being able to.
I think Gates once also said del. IE would mean Windows would stop working as well too..
Real may stink but WMP stinks worse.
Why do I have to compromise the OS just to del. a app. I want to replace with something else.
No one should be punished for del. a app. or being able to.
I think Gates once also said del. IE would mean Windows would stop working as well too..
Re: Swifts not that Swift
I just deleted Safari, so can you point out where I might find internet preferences now
I just deleted Safari, so can you point out where I might find internet preferences now
Re: Re: Swifts not that Swift
what might you need internet prefs for if you do not have a program to get on the internet?
IE's internet prefs are within IE, email prefs are within that program as well. what is the problem?
Originally posted by billyboy
I just deleted Safari, so can you point out where I might find internet preferences now
what might you need internet prefs for if you do not have a program to get on the internet?
IE's internet prefs are within IE, email prefs are within that program as well. what is the problem?
Originally posted by pb1212580
I think it's getting ridiculous though...
I mean really, it's really not MS' fault for "gotten" chosen as THE os for PCs and grew so big... and they had to incorporate more functions such as web browsing, digital music player...
you can't sue them for expanding Windows, no?! Just cuz they are bigger...
write better apps to compete, Real!
or strike deals! work with apple!
What's next? are they going to sue MS for their own implementation of the calculator? clock?
According to US Antitrust laws (which are echoed in Europe and several other countries), with power comes responsibility.
Had there been a viable market for Calc and Clock implementations which Microsoft squashed AFTER gaining an OS monopoly, yes, Microsoft could be sued for including them in Windows. Given that there really isn't a market for such (although there are better-than-Windows' free/shareware implementations out and about), and that Microsoft hasn't aggressively moved to shut off competition in this area, there's no cause for suit there. Since these apps existed in their fundamental current state prior to Microsoft gaining a monopoly in the OS, they are allowed to remain as a part of the OS. The same may be said of Notepad and Paint and Solitaire.
Media is a different story: not only was there a pre-existing market for media players prior to Microsoft including even the basic Windows Media Player in Windows, there was a strong market for media formats, including media encoders, before Microsoft used their Windows monopoly as leverage into that market.
To be clear: it is NOT illegal to have a monopoly. It is NOT illegal to tie two products (an OS and a media player, for example) together. It is NOT illegal to leverage a competitive advantage in one market to gain advantage in another market. It IS] illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another market.
From basic economic principles, had Microsoft not obtained monopolistic sway in the Windows market, bundling Windows Media Player with Windows and excluding other players from integrating would have been a competitive disadvantage in the OS market; Microsoft would be trading a relative advantage in one market for a disadvantage in another market, which is completely legal and logical. Given the monopoly status of Windows, that "disadvantage" is meaningless, and the usual checks and balances of a free economic system tend to break down. That is why antitrust laws exist: to keep the general marketplace safe from cancerous growths of companies leveraging monopoly power in one market to gain a monopoly in another area and so on.
The side effect of this is that, by design, once one obtains a monopoly in a market, it is hard to maintain that monopoly through successive "generations" of that market. An Oil monopoly could not be leveraged to an Electricity monopoly. A Rail monopoly could not be leveraged to an Automotive monopoly. This is by design. Likewise, a "Desktop Operating System Monopoly" should not necessarily be able to be leveraged into a "Digital Hub Monopoly" (although Microsoft is succeeding in doing so).
It is, in other words, NOT Microsoft's "right" to include whatever a next-generation OS might include in their OS.
Nevertheless, Microsoft has $45B in the bank thanks to its hard-won OS monopoly ("hard-won" perhaps being too strong a phrase ...) That is the reward for successful competition. A perpetual monopoly is neither guaranteed nor preferred in a free-market economy.
I'm glad I am not Bill...nothing goes right with that company...or something.
Yes, it's hard being a monopoly. Ask the Rockefellers. Yet, somehow, I don't think Bill is crying too hard before kissing his $45B good night.
IMHO, Real is a despicable company. I can't in good conscience root for them. Here's hoping this lawsuit gets really expensive and puts Real out of business and makes Microsoft change its operating practices. The world would be a better place ...
On the other hand, Microsoft has already shown that it ownz this Justice Department, so I doubt Microsoft will be forced to change practices at all any time this or next year ...I think alot of discussion so far misses the real major point of this suit.
I don't think it's so much about the applications but the media. And so far most people are just looking at it from an application standpoint(i.e. WMP sucks less than RealOne so Go MS! or vice versa)
The bigger picture IMO is the battle for the media format itself. And should things go as well for MS as they did in the browser wars we as Mac users(and Linux users too) could be in for a pretty bad time.
If we use MS's actions against Netscape as a roadmap we can see where they are trying to go with WMP and WMA/WMV.
First they release a product to compete with an already established player in the field. And in the case of both Netscape and Real both were commercial in some respect. MS of course releases what they have for free, not out of the kindness out of their heart, but to cut profits from the other guy.
Along with this first step they usually introduce their own proprietary formats. In WMP's case WMA and WMV which is fine, they can make their own codec. In IE's case they bastardized html so if you write to IE it wont work/suck on competing browsers, which ISN'T fine.
Once they've fired the first shot and started to take some marketshare they will start to grow their product. Making it 'not suck' in most cases and bring it up to what their competition actually has, as they do this they start building hooks into the OS to get it ready for phase 2.
The next step, phase 2, they integrate the program into the OS. They've already started to get the more 'technical savvy' people with step 1, now they can get all the casual people who don't know/are too lazy to go out and download and install 3rd party software. With integration they can 'cheat' by writing in their own special API's and other hidden tweaks to make their program basically look and feel faster, many times sabotaging their competition in additions with core OS 'enhancements'.
During this step they also start to threaten OEM's not to include their competitions software; to keep the casual user from ever even having the option to see what the competition has.
By this time they've got a large chunk of the userbase converted to their software. In the case of WMP they can goto content providers and say, 'Look we have 95% of the market, we even support other platforms, and hey we're opening up WM', so why don't you dump Real, etc. and switch to WM.
"So what!" I hear the naysayers say, "We can play WM content on our Macs too, and who cares about Linux", Well all I have to say to that is take a look at what MS did to IE. Once Apple's safari started to come into the limelight they cut IE loose in the blink of an eye.
MS may be trying to appear to by playing nice by making WM an open standard...under the complete and total control of MS however. Don't be so comfortable that IF WM actually becomes a standard MS won't just yank the rug out from under us once they've got the content providers under their thumb.
MS can just make up some lame excuse about how the next big release of windows has security or functionality features in it that no other OS has and therefore WM12 will only be available to windows users. So everyone will either be forced to upgrade to the new version of windows, or if unfortunate enough to use a Mac, switch to PC.
I don't think it's so much about the applications but the media. And so far most people are just looking at it from an application standpoint(i.e. WMP sucks less than RealOne so Go MS! or vice versa)
The bigger picture IMO is the battle for the media format itself. And should things go as well for MS as they did in the browser wars we as Mac users(and Linux users too) could be in for a pretty bad time.
If we use MS's actions against Netscape as a roadmap we can see where they are trying to go with WMP and WMA/WMV.
First they release a product to compete with an already established player in the field. And in the case of both Netscape and Real both were commercial in some respect. MS of course releases what they have for free, not out of the kindness out of their heart, but to cut profits from the other guy.
Along with this first step they usually introduce their own proprietary formats. In WMP's case WMA and WMV which is fine, they can make their own codec. In IE's case they bastardized html so if you write to IE it wont work/suck on competing browsers, which ISN'T fine.
Once they've fired the first shot and started to take some marketshare they will start to grow their product. Making it 'not suck' in most cases and bring it up to what their competition actually has, as they do this they start building hooks into the OS to get it ready for phase 2.
The next step, phase 2, they integrate the program into the OS. They've already started to get the more 'technical savvy' people with step 1, now they can get all the casual people who don't know/are too lazy to go out and download and install 3rd party software. With integration they can 'cheat' by writing in their own special API's and other hidden tweaks to make their program basically look and feel faster, many times sabotaging their competition in additions with core OS 'enhancements'.
During this step they also start to threaten OEM's not to include their competitions software; to keep the casual user from ever even having the option to see what the competition has.
By this time they've got a large chunk of the userbase converted to their software. In the case of WMP they can goto content providers and say, 'Look we have 95% of the market, we even support other platforms, and hey we're opening up WM', so why don't you dump Real, etc. and switch to WM.
"So what!" I hear the naysayers say, "We can play WM content on our Macs too, and who cares about Linux", Well all I have to say to that is take a look at what MS did to IE. Once Apple's safari started to come into the limelight they cut IE loose in the blink of an eye.
MS may be trying to appear to by playing nice by making WM an open standard...under the complete and total control of MS however. Don't be so comfortable that IF WM actually becomes a standard MS won't just yank the rug out from under us once they've got the content providers under their thumb.
MS can just make up some lame excuse about how the next big release of windows has security or functionality features in it that no other OS has and therefore WM12 will only be available to windows users. So everyone will either be forced to upgrade to the new version of windows, or if unfortunate enough to use a Mac, switch to PC.
Re: Re: Swifts not that Swift
Ahh, I was wondering why Apple moved that to Safari in Panther, it just became clear... hehe.
Although, it would seem the only thing you lose is being able to set the default browser explicitly. No?
Originally posted by billyboy
I just deleted Safari, so can you point out where I might find internet preferences now
Ahh, I was wondering why Apple moved that to Safari in Panther, it just became clear... hehe.
Although, it would seem the only thing you lose is being able to set the default browser explicitly. No?
Re: Re: Re: Swifts not that Swift
As you say, it is no biggie really, but I was just illustrating (albeit hopelessly) that Apple have made a stealthy first step that could possibly be part of a long term plan towards tying a free browser app directly into OS X - a la Microsoft. But as Apple arent a monopoly and never will be, they can be as mischievous or creative as they like and only answer to the discerning customer, whereas MS have to play by different rules.
Apparently some hard core users are dragging internet preferences across from Jaguar into Panther in disgust at the change in the system! Come the revolution...
As you say, it is no biggie really, but I was just illustrating (albeit hopelessly) that Apple have made a stealthy first step that could possibly be part of a long term plan towards tying a free browser app directly into OS X - a la Microsoft. But as Apple arent a monopoly and never will be, they can be as mischievous or creative as they like and only answer to the discerning customer, whereas MS have to play by different rules.
Apparently some hard core users are dragging internet preferences across from Jaguar into Panther in disgust at the change in the system! Come the revolution...
Re: Re: Re: Swifts not that Swift
First, this particular discussion probably should go in a different thread. Having said that...
I use Mozilla Firebird as my browser, and Mozilla Thunderbird as my e-mail client. But let's say I currently had IE as my default browser. If I were to delete Safari and Mail.app, I would not have a way to switch the default away from IE in the future.
Originally posted by Earendil
what might you need internet prefs for if you do not have a program to get on the internet?
IE's internet prefs are within IE, email prefs are within that program as well. what is the problem?
First, this particular discussion probably should go in a different thread. Having said that...
I use Mozilla Firebird as my browser, and Mozilla Thunderbird as my e-mail client. But let's say I currently had IE as my default browser. If I were to delete Safari and Mail.app, I would not have a way to switch the default away from IE in the future.
Re: Swifts not that Swift
*sigh* Yes, QuickTime and Safari are integrated into Mac OS X.
Even though you delete the QT player, the QuickTime player framework is still there, and many third-party applications can use it in order to display images in their applications. If you took QuickTime out of the Mac OS, you wouldn't be able to view pictures on the internet in Safari, you wouldn't be able to listen to any music or sound through your computer, and you probably wouldn't even be able to boot, because so much graphical stuff in Mac OS X is based on QuickTime.
Sure, you can delete the app QuickTime Player, but that's not the same thing as deleting QuickTime itself. There are a bunch of other files that compose QuickTime and you just can't rip it out of Mac OS X. Bottom line: QuickTime is integrated into Mac OS X just like Windows Media Player is integrated into Windows.
Safari is very much integrated into Mac OS X, too. While you can delete the app, the WebKit framework still resides on your computer. If you've noticed, many applications are starting to take advantage of this framework (for example, Acquisition or NetNewsWire, or even Apple's own apps like Mail). So, sure, you can still delete Safari, but its core framework still exists, and if you delete that, some of your other apps will stop working. You can't just replace the WebKit framework with something else and expect all your apps to function correctly. It just doesn't work like that.
You wanna test this theory out? OK, you be the guinea pig. Go to the folder /System/Library/Frameworks , and delete the whole folder called "QuickTime.framework". Then restart, and tell us how your operating system runs.
Or for Safari. If you're on Panther (Safari is not integrated as much into Jaguar), delete the file called "WebKit.framework" in the folder /System/Library/Frameworks , and then restart and tell us how Mail or NetNewsWire or Acquisition functions. They won't. So that means Safari is integrated into Mac OS X.
If you don't have the guts to test out whether you can just delete the QT or WebKit frameworks, then you don't have the right to go posting about whether QuickTime or Safari are not integrated into Mac OS X, because clearly they are.
*sigh* Yes, QuickTime and Safari are integrated into Mac OS X.
Even though you delete the QT player, the QuickTime player framework is still there, and many third-party applications can use it in order to display images in their applications. If you took QuickTime out of the Mac OS, you wouldn't be able to view pictures on the internet in Safari, you wouldn't be able to listen to any music or sound through your computer, and you probably wouldn't even be able to boot, because so much graphical stuff in Mac OS X is based on QuickTime.
Sure, you can delete the app QuickTime Player, but that's not the same thing as deleting QuickTime itself. There are a bunch of other files that compose QuickTime and you just can't rip it out of Mac OS X. Bottom line: QuickTime is integrated into Mac OS X just like Windows Media Player is integrated into Windows.
Safari is very much integrated into Mac OS X, too. While you can delete the app, the WebKit framework still resides on your computer. If you've noticed, many applications are starting to take advantage of this framework (for example, Acquisition or NetNewsWire, or even Apple's own apps like Mail). So, sure, you can still delete Safari, but its core framework still exists, and if you delete that, some of your other apps will stop working. You can't just replace the WebKit framework with something else and expect all your apps to function correctly. It just doesn't work like that.
You wanna test this theory out? OK, you be the guinea pig. Go to the folder /System/Library/Frameworks , and delete the whole folder called "QuickTime.framework". Then restart, and tell us how your operating system runs.
Or for Safari. If you're on Panther (Safari is not integrated as much into Jaguar), delete the file called "WebKit.framework" in the folder /System/Library/Frameworks , and then restart and tell us how Mail or NetNewsWire or Acquisition functions. They won't. So that means Safari is integrated into Mac OS X.
If you don't have the guts to test out whether you can just delete the QT or WebKit frameworks, then you don't have the right to go posting about whether QuickTime or Safari are not integrated into Mac OS X, because clearly they are.
Focus on the Issue!
The real crux of MS' misbehavior is not that they tie WMP to Windows or work to have it preinstalled by OEMs. The problem is that MS uses its market power with OEMs to force them to bundle MS software and not bundle other companies' software on Windows PCs that the OEMs ship. There are legal means to get OEMs to bundle MS (or anybody's) software with their default installations - like AOL, which would pay the OEMs a small bonus for installing AOL on the machines. MS' problem is that it tends to use threats, such as withholding a license to install Windows, to ensure that OEMs comply with its wishes.
The real crux of MS' misbehavior is not that they tie WMP to Windows or work to have it preinstalled by OEMs. The problem is that MS uses its market power with OEMs to force them to bundle MS software and not bundle other companies' software on Windows PCs that the OEMs ship. There are legal means to get OEMs to bundle MS (or anybody's) software with their default installations - like AOL, which would pay the OEMs a small bonus for installing AOL on the machines. MS' problem is that it tends to use threats, such as withholding a license to install Windows, to ensure that OEMs comply with its wishes.
The fact is that Windows belongs to Microsoft. When it comes down to it, Microsoft can build anything they want into windows. Apple can build anything they want into OS-X. Real and Netscape can't tell Microsoft or Apple how to build their OS. If Real wants their product to do well they will have to make a better product than WMP.
What's next? Will they tell FreeBSD and Linux not to include Gnome? Come on!
I had Real on my machine but I removed it as of today. I will never use Real again. I hope the same thing that happened to Netscape will happen to Real.
What's next? Will they tell FreeBSD and Linux not to include Gnome? Come on!
I had Real on my machine but I removed it as of today. I will never use Real again. I hope the same thing that happened to Netscape will happen to Real.
Out of all of the companies in existence, the only one I hate more than M$ is Real. Go M$! (I can't believe I said that). I hope real goes out of business. They're never getting me to install their player on my mac or pc. Maybe M$ is beating them in the video player wars because everyone hates Real more than m$.
Before everyone jumps all over Real, what do you want to bet that Apple joins in on the lawsuit?