Spoilsports

So, a few months ago, Microsoft lost a ruling by a European Union court that determined that the bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows XP was a violation of European antitrust regulations. The proposed remedy was that Microsoft also sell, alongside Windows XP, a version of Windows XP that did not include Windows Media Player. Microsoft disagreed with the ruling, but agreed to comply with the proposed remedy and not bother appealing.

So a couple weeks ago, Microsoft released the new, compliant Windows XP. It's missing Windows Media Player altogether, which means it is incapable of doing many commonly-expected computing tasks -- that is, it is unable to play a CD or DVD, play MP3 or WMA files, play Windows Media Video or AVI files, connect a portable media/MP3 player, stream audio or video from a website, or indeed do anything with video or sound whatsoever aside from the WAV files integrated into the shell (i.e. the clicks and dings Windows always makes.) But best of all, we proudly named it Windows XP Reduced Media Edition, and made it available, in EU countries only, for the same price as the full-featured Windows XP.

Personally, I thought this was beautiful, basically Microsoft thumbing its nose at the European Union court while simultaneously complying precisely with its order. Alas, the EU court was not amused and has demanded Microsoft change the name to something that doesn't sound "less appealing" than the bundled version.

So the EU is doing its part to protect consumers, by making sure that Microsoft is offering them an OS with less features, and also making sure that the naming is deceptive enough not to give away the fact that it's a crippled version. But really, what can Microsoft call it that doesn't sound less appealing? The simple fact is that you pay the same price to get less. How do you come up with a marketing-friendly name for that, without being so misleading that people might buy it by accident?

Besides, any new name won't be nearly as funny.