Reactions to the ruling on both sides of the Atlantic were tense, to say the least :)

10 members of the US House International Relations Committee wrote to European Competition Commissioner, Mario Monti, criticising the ruling and complaining that "...it was of the 'utmost importance' that the United States continue to take the lead in overseeing American companies' business practices."

Microsoft CE Steve Balmer vowed to fight on, of course, after talks between Mario Monti and he broke down. Microsoft is now likely to apply for an annulment of the decision, a procedure that may take several years, and finally end with a hearing and a judgement.

Even the US Justice Department weighed in, with this and other comments: "...it is unfortunate that the largest antitrust fine ever levied will now be imposed in a case of unilateral competitive conduct, the most ambiguous and controversial area of antitrust enforcement. For this fine to surpass even the fines levied against members of the most notorious price fixing cartels may send an unfortunate message about the appropriate hierarchy of enforcement priorities."

Brad Smith, Microsoft's top lawyer, again used the argument that removing Media Player will produce problems with Windows: "Even if one takes away the multimedia code and, as RealNetworks has suggested, installs their player in its place, there will remain over 20 features in the Windows operating system that will not function. There will remain many European Web sites that will not function properly."

Microsoft repeated the mantra that the company had the right to improve its products to meet the needs of consumers. Unfortunately, by "bundling" in additions to Windows that cannot be removed, it is virtually guaranteeing itself ongoing antitrust litigation, due to complaints from competitors. What started with the bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows 95, looks set to continue for years to come.

OS and application bloat?

I once commented to Russell Brown of Adobe that Photoshop had become an enormously large and complex software program. I suggested that taking a modular approach might make sense, and reduce software bloat. I floated the idea of separate modules for prepress and the web, which the user could either choose to install or not, depending upon the type of work they were engaged in.

Russell's response was that programmers hated coding modular applications, as they were more difficult to write and required more extensive testing. Obviously, a modular operating system would also be harder to code. Versions of Windows without, say multimedia or even a browser, would require Microsoft to fix any problems with code interdependencies.

By making more additions to the OS dependent upon each other and the core operating system, Microsoft is indicating its reluctance to develop and test cut-down versions of Windows, and clinging precariously to its position that "the whole will not work if a bundled addition is removed".

For years, Apple computer users have enjoyed the simplicity of choosing to install Apple's software only when required. Apple's Safari browser does not take over the system, for instance, and can be added only as required. QuickTime too, can be removed without the system grinding to a halt. An experienced user can strip a pre-Mac OS X system down to the absolute basics, for a server for instance, and remove hundreds of megabytes of unnecessary data, creating a system that is faster and more stable.

Mac OS X, the new Apple operating system is a little more complex, and not quite so simple to customise. Right at this point, if I wanted to remove unnecessary items from the system, I would probably have to start with a book about Unix :) Undoubtedly, with time and familiarity, this situation will improve somewhat.

Set in stone

Microsoft's decision to continue to "bundle" applications into Windows, which they successfully defended in the US antitrust trials, has now been soundly rejected by the Europeans. This dramatically different interpretation of antitrust law, compared to the settlement negotiated between US authorities and Microsoft, will be a trans-Atlantic bone of contention for years.

There is some merit to the argument that the Bush administration "went soft" on the Microsoft problem, when it inherited the litigation, and settled to Microsoft's advantage. And there may be some merit to the argument that a "home-grown" monopoly will always be dealt with more reasonably than an "imported" one. Certainly, the US DOJ gave up on the bundling issue and never really pursued it.

Either way, the EU has been exceedingly tough on Microsoft, handing out the largest fine in its history. This cannot help but upset US ties with Europe, which have been straining for some time over trade and steel disputes, GM foods and the war in Iraq. Some media commentators have seen this as the start of another US vs. EU trade war.

You probably won't be able to buy a version of Windows without Media Player in the immediate future, given the appeals process being undertaken, and it is highly unlikely US users will ever be offered the same, cut-down Windows product. It is simply not in Microsoft's interests to produce cut-down versions of Windows, even if there is demand.

For most of us, we will have to live with increasingly complex operating systems with more and more features, and applications that can be hundreds of megabytes in size. This growing complexity diminishes our ability to maintain, "trouble shoot" and customise the systems we use. On the Windows side of things, you can add a constantly growing suite of Microsoft programs that cannot be removed without affecting system reliability or performance.

For web developers and the web awards community, who must also install virtually every other media player as well as Media Player, it makes for increased complexity. On my current Mac, I have QuickTime, Windows Media Player and Real Player. And I still have an issue with ".avi" format files, which are not supported by any of these Mac players.

I remember when the only media player was QuickTime. Life was more simple. Those were the days :)
 

More reading:

• Microsoft ruling is 'first shot in trade war'
• Microsoft fine too big (Infoworld)
• MS gets EU fine, orders for server info and WMP-free Windows
• Windows ruling is biggest IP heist in EU history, claims MS
• US Department of Justice statement