Theoretically, a vicious circle ensues. As more content becomes available for one player versus the others, any hope of the others catching up is dashed. In the case of WMP's integration into Windows, that vicious circle runs the additional risk of hurting operating systems (Macintosh, Linux, PalmOS, etc.) that don't have the richest and timeliest support for WMP compared to Microsoft's operating systems and technologies (Windows, PocketPC, X-Box, etc.).
Despite a gag order on the EU's proceedings, the Reuters story reported that Microsoft argued the validity of an EU survey indicating that companies would not spend the extra money necessary to offer their content in other formats, such as RealPlayer and Apple's QuickTime. According to the news report, "Microsoft dismissed the Commission's survey as anecdotal and not statistically valid, adding that companies could afford the cost of offering more than one format."
If the report is true, then Microsoft appears to be suggesting that cost is not a factor when choosing which media players to support.
That notion is ludicrous. The cost of supporting multiple media players versus just one is not insignificant. A financial barrier exists to developing content for any but the most popular player, and it's reasonable to conclude that WMP's market prevalence, due to its inclusion in the most popular desktop operating system, makes it economically unfeasible for competing players to compete, much less flourish in an open market.
As a side note, this doesn't mean that the remedy is to remove WMP from Windows.
Before checking in with some multimedia content developers to get their perspective, I checked with Microsoft to confirm the report by Reuters. Microsoft spokesperson Jim Desler emphasised that any news coming out of the hearings should be treated with a grain of salt. According to Desler, "The process is confidential. The entire Reuters story is based on sources that attended the hearing, and it's not a public hearing. It's a closed-door hearing."
Talkback
The reason REAL cannot compete with MS Media Player isn't because MS Media player comes on the system - it's because REAL has an ages-old history of hijacking media file associations, sucking up CPU cycles with their tool-tray widget (that they do not allow you to disable in setup and hide from the user every way they can in the preferences) and (worse of all) delivering SPYWARE with their installer and sticking ADVERTISEMENTS all over the user's desktop.
I rarely use Media Player, and it's been that way for years. For a long time it was Sasami, and the last year or more it's been Zoom Player - both EXCELLENT products that interface with the underlying media player structure (just as REAL does when it plays Windows Media files) and have gorgeous user interfaces.
You want to see Windows without all those media gadgets? Look at the state of Linux desktops in regards to multimedia content; with no underlying OS support for ANY standards at all you end up with a needlessly complicated cabal of media stream widgets, none of which can speak with one another. Stripping Media Player from windows would leave the EU with essentially ONE platform upon which common users would be able to fend for themselves when it comes to installing and using a variety of media applications: APPLE.
Do you really think the "solution" lies in switching from one proprietary "monopoly" to another?
Real has no market share because Real sucks. In spite of their grand talk about "embracing the open community" their codecs remain firmly patented and their "openness" amounts to nothing more than window dressing. If REAL would walk the walk like they talk the talk there'd be no stopping them. let them lie in the grave they dug themselves - and if they awaken, let them dig their way out without dragging the rest of us into that trench with them.
Another reason REAL is dead in the water is that their audio codecs don't sound as good as others do at this point in time. Sure they were one of the "first on the block" with streaming; but they haven't kept up with the audio quality. MP3, AAC, and Ogg Vorbis all sound better than REAL, for a given data bandwidth. What's more, their "surestream" technology has terribly insufficient buffer sizes, so that the system is constantly "upshifting" and "downshifting" with resulting terrible bings, pops, and dead air. If REAL had a competitive product (and if they made it reasonably easy to use, as another poster pointed out) then I would feel sorry for them. But REAL has blown it (and I believed in them strongly enough to buy their stock "way back when") and they have nothing competitive to offer now. Sic transit gloria mundi.