10 ms·

> it gave away its new product for no or low cost to existing clients, and bundled it with existing product lines. In a society with functional antitrust laws,

> it gave away its new product for no or low cost to existing clients, and bundled it with existing product lines. In a society with functional antitrust laws, such activity would be illegal. But alas. I find this statement highly suspect. What kind of world do we want to live in where regulators delineate product areas. I see Microsoft integrating Teams into their productivity product bundle as feature; not a bug. Otherwise, we run the risk of creating separate product areas and none of them working well together — it’a going to be a minor pain in the butt to email <user@outlook.com> with the pdf tchalla@ shared on Slack; deal with formatted paste/copy & whatever else issues. I mean, products being integrated is the whole MO of companies like Apple, Tesla and literally every other company making physical things. Sure, you can sacrifice the integration for other features like breadth of choice, specialized user needs etc, but proposing regulations to keep them distinct and separate?! That modesty sound right, imho

Hammershaft 6y ago
An off the cuff idea I haven't really thought through the implications of: What if these (somewhat arbitrary) product categories were enforced, but instead of preventing different products from integrating, we mandated they be composable over documented APIs? That way we could get some of the benefits of integration, but without the intensely anti competitive nature of walled garden apps?
- weego 6y ago
  The net result would be Govt vs Megacorps tied up in a decade of litigation arguing what the terms 'composable' and 'API' mean
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    As opposed to decades of companies and governments arguing in court what constitutes a monopoly? I mean, composability would just be the intended net result, not a part of the legal framework of the mandate. I think you could also avoid using the word API entirely. I could see the end result being similiar to how default app selection works in Android. That said, I still haven't sat down and thought through the unintended side effects.
pjc50 6y ago
The more integration, the less competition. The software competitive scene is fairly good at the moment, and the open web remains an escape hatch, but the risk of too tight integration is that startups become impossible.
- collyw 6y ago
  Would that be the case if open standards were used?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Arguably if it's an open interface it's not "integrated". You certainly lose the product improvement and co-design benefits of tight integration when you have to run it past a standard committee. Or you end up with "open standard with proprietary extension" (bane of everything from HTML to opengl)
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Let's aim for integration on equal footing, then. No special APIs for vendor only, and no ToC clauses prohibiting third-party clients/integrations. I don't know how to work around the "COM problem", though - IIRC, your product can have just as deep integrations with Outlook & Office as Teams has, if you're willing to throw man-hours at dealing with the clumsiness of COM. This understandably advantages a company with lots of money to spend and direct access to people who develop the platform. Some non-MS products still manage to ship with deep integrations, but in my experience, they tend to be fragile. That said, I feel it would be a tremendous help for both competition and integration, if some form of "can't restrict access to a service to vendor-owned clients" clause entered the law. It's kind of my problem with products being turned into services - service providers currently have way too much power over their customers/users.
- tannhaeuser 6y ago
  > The software competitive scene is fairly good at the moment, and the open web remains an escape hatch Can't agree really. On the operating system front, it's Linux-only at this point. And the "Linux community" has completed its long way to the dark side, with RedHat paying devs to subvert the portability Unix/POSIX has always stood for, with systemd and the rush to containers. For a perspective, consider Docker was originally a way to equalize distro-specific libs and quirks; RedHat and Kubernetes essentially deprecating Docker (and adding unbelievable amounts of code to replace it as infrastructure) just means a central entity calls the shots now. When the problem of non-uniform libs is entirely created by RedHat and too many distros themselves. In reality, starved core F/OSS packages haven't changed in a decade or more. But enterprise cloud deals are just too sweet, so change for change's sake it is. In that context, it makes sense that RedHat has shutdown CentOS now. On the web, it's even worse. There are no "browser vendors" except Google and Apple left, and Google is gatekeeping so-called web standards. Recently, HTTP and DNS is up for grabs as well. Hail monopolies.
nverno 6y ago
Agreed. It sounds like the author is envisioning a society where regulators have a hell of a lot of power- would every price change a company made need to be given the OK? I guess the litagators would have a field day. Doesn't every profitable company have a monopoly on its niche space? Not all monopolies are equal
- oblio 6y ago
  For physical products we have anti-dumping laws. You can't abuse your monopoly power to sell products below cost in order to take out competition. We need something like this for software products.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    How would anti-dumping principals be applied to f/oss? For a long time, Ubuntu's number one bug was the existance of Windows. If company A is releasing a product for free, with the stated aim of damaging company B's market share, how is that not dumping? https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1 "Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug which Ubuntu and other projects are meant to fix."
shp0ngle 6y ago
I have no idea how that happened, but one day, I found Teams suddenly automatically installed on my spouses computer; and not only auto-installed, but it auto-started on Windows start. How? Why? It was probably bundled with Office and/or Windows. MS got news-breaking fine for far less with Netscape before. But, nobody cares in 2020.
- chippytea 6y ago
  Microsoft was auto installing Teams with auto startup on Windows Server 2019 for a while. And you could only access settings to turn off auto startup if you logged in or changed some registry settings.
- interestica 6y ago
  Seems like MS literally installed this about two hours ago for me with a forced update on Win10
  - shp0ngle 6y ago
    I wonder if it's Office thing or they just push it to all Windows users.
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      It's an O365 thing, it has nothing to do with Windows. It also depends on a few things with the subscription and settings, so everyone won't get it automatically and if you do it's easy* to turn off. *Once you know where to look.
      - interestica 6y ago
        >It's an O365 thing It's now a "Microsoft 365" thing.
- em500 6y ago
  It should be well known by now that if you're running Windows 10, Microsoft is your system administrator, and can control (at least technically) exactly what runs on your computer. Unless maybe if you really put time/effort into stopping that (if it's still possible at all). This is not meant to be judgemental. I'm actually of the opinion this is better in general than leaving sysadmin duties to the general public, which was largely the situation in the 1990s / early 2000s. But outsourcing this to Microsoft does of course have it's downsides, like you just experienced.
oaiey 6y ago
I agree with that. The market is full of chat software, some better, some worse. Microsoft for example had Skype (for Business). All they did is the consequent next step and integrate chat with the rest of their productivity suite (as everyone else in the market does). They basically follow Google Workspaces which innovated many things in the last 10 years. It is an oligarchy but it is not that Microsoft is owning the market. I think it is sad that Slack is loosing independence in the the market. However, I blame investors far more than the market. When I understand it right, they yearly profit is in the 100s of millions. It is a financial decision of them.
cblconfederate 6y ago
> world do we want to live in where regulators delineate product areas. The same world where they dictate what is intellectual property
Gravityloss 6y ago
Many people using Outlook run Teams meetings, because it's just one button click away in Outlook. Compare to others where you have to go to a different tool and create a meeting and copy-paste a link. The antitrust way would be to have Outlook have buttons for a lot of different meeting services out of the box. Many don't require installing any software (Google meet for example). It's all just API:s.
- Gh0stRAT 6y ago
  My employer's Outlook does have a button for a competing meeting service. (WebEx) Some people are starting to use Teams for their meetings now because some of them like it better than WebEx, but it is exactly the same amount of effort to schedule either of them directly from Outlook.
  - Gravityloss 6y ago
    In my opinion, Webex is very old and for example Linux compatibility is worse than Teams.
- addicted 6y ago
  Anyone can build a 1 click experience similar to the Teams add-in for outlook.
  - Gravityloss 6y ago
    So some kind of plugin?
    - bradstewart 6y ago
      Yep. For instance, there's a Zoom plugin that puts a "make a Zoom meeting" button right there as well.
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      That's how teams does it, yes.
lucideer 6y ago
> What kind of world do we want to live in where regulators delineate product areas. I'd love to try living in this world. What are the downsides you see?
zo1 6y ago
In my view, it would probably be a non-issue if the "anti-trust" regulations simply required interoperability to a sufficient degree. Then you can bundle and integrate to your hearts-content, but you have to stick to open APIs or allow easy usage of your own API freely.
taurath 6y ago
When the cost of replication moves towards zero, the loss leaders pricing move towards free. My gut tells me this is probably quite bad overall because it is de facto total market control but only for those that are either incumbents or can somehow compete with free. It smells of AT&T, Comcast, and other “locked in” vendors, aka the most loathed companies in the nation. At a minimum it raises the bar of entry to a market.
chii 6y ago
> we run the risk of creating separate product areas and none of them working well together or, have mandated open apis that _force_ products to integrate. That's what the web is today (mostly). Links, and embedable content (like frames). APIs and data. The reason companies don't do this - as demonstrated fairly recently by google with their removal of xmpp protocols from google chat - is that open apis prevent lock. Open apis allows others to compete, and it is not in the interest of the existing incumbent. IBM made a crucial mistake that apple didn't make when IBM opened the specs for their IBM compatible machines and drove down the price of PCs to what you see today - otherwise, i would predict that PCs would be just as expensive and incompatible as apple computers were.
- abhinav22 6y ago
  Agree wholeheartedly although maybe not on the IBM part. But all these big tech firms are really closing up technology and avoiding open apis and competition with other players.
- silon42 6y ago
  Not apis, protocols preferably.
  - chii 6y ago
    API and protocols can be used interchangably in this case.
- thrower123 6y ago
  The problem with common APIs is that they are a lowest common denominator. I deal with this all the time with Microsoft's Bot Framework - which is somewhat shitty open protocol for writing chat bots that plug into a whole range of messaging platforms, including Teams and Slack. It's functional, more or less, but it by necessity has to target the lowest common set of capabilities of the services it plugs into, and that makes it clunky as hell. And you still end up having to write a bunch of bodgy platform-specific code to get it to do anything interesting.
  - 6y ago
dustingetz 6y ago
the reason they don’t integrate well is it’s not in their interests, having already consumed global markets they are out of growth and need to own the whole ecosystem to grow. imagine if Peco electricity only worked with Peco houses.
addicted 6y ago
I am not the biggest supporter of MS’s anti competitive nature. But I find the complaints against Teams to be suspect. Primarily because Teams is not adding anything new to the MS office bundle. It’s a slightly better replacement (arguably!) for Skype. There’s barely a feature in MS Teams that isn’t, at best, an enhancement on what MS was already delivering within Skype.
simion314 6y ago
IMO integration will force us stuck in a point of local optimum, Apple,Tesla,Microsoft,Google will decide what this point is and you will have to like it, changing a wallpaper will need to be approved, starting an application will be also approved and logged, social media apps or groups will also be censored to protect you. You will not be able to tweak a color or replace the shitty browser with a better one (Microsoft would have loved to have Apple privileges and force all it's users to use IE). If you don't like regulators deviding, maybe we should ask users ?
- thanksforthe42 6y ago
  Microsoft already lost this battle. Google has decided not to fight the battle. Apple has their segment walled in like North Korea. Tesla uses religion to control their followers.
rmrfstar 6y ago
Take a look at the issue from another point of view. Predatory pricing and bundling are two destructive ways to compete. Predatory pricing is just dumping. You sell something below cost until your competition goes out of business, then you either raise prices or hold prices constant but reduce quality (eg Amazon selling counterfeit books). Bundling is requiring people to purchase A+B in combination. An example would be a gourmet ice-cream maker that is actually famous for chocolate but only sells 50% chocolate, 50% vanilla. You can see this move as a combination of bundling and predatory pricing. Microsoft did this with Defender too. Their strategy is to starve nascent competitors for revenue in a niche area so they can never mount a direct attack on the core business.
- willyg123 6y ago
  > then you either raise prices or hold prices constant but reduce quality (eg Amazon selling counterfeit books) I can't think of one example of a company killing a competitor via free products and then raising prices. And let's not pretend Amazon's counterfeit book problem was part of the business plan.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bearcobra 6y ago
  Defender is a good example of why we might not want regulators to decide product categories. To me it seems perfectly reasonable that an operating system would offer a malware protection feature. Just because a feature wasn't included in a previous version and an aftermarket offering was developed, shouldn't mean that a vendor can't improve the product by adding it in.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    The regulator wouldn't have to do anything more invasive than say, "Microsoft will charge its development cost or greater for any additional features that are currently offered commercially". Yes, that would create some accounting overhead. But it's a small price to pay to keep Godzilla from eating the villagers' livestock.
dalbasal 6y ago
>> I see Microsoft integrating Teams into their productivity product bundle as feature. I agree with you on details, but with Matt on the overall sentiment. Most thinking on monopolies is pretty flawed, based in legalistic precedent and analogy to near anecdotes. The 1998 antitrust case against MSFT's bundling of IE to kill netscape made sense in regards to precedent (eg IBM) and economic theory. It was never the primary issue irl and the court didn't fix it despite finding against msft. I don't think a regulator or court can just pinpoint "monopolistic behaviours" and fix it. The MSFT case proves the point. Prosecutors won, but it didn't matter much. IE still dominated. Competition waned for a while. In retrospect, the whole thing seems irrelevant or trivial to MSFT's monopoly as a whole. We are not better or worse of because of the case, probably. A recent example is Adwords' EU case. Their dominant market share in search and search ads gave them all their minor competitors' data which was used to maintain their monopoly. The court gave google a $1.5bn fine that changed nothing. Now that precedent will be used in the US & EU to go after Amazon. They clearly use their marketplace to gain data for their retail business and skim any cream uncovered by their partners. Whatever specific anti-competition behaviours prosecutors were able to uncover and prove are anecdotal. They "prove" that monopoly issues exist, but they aren't necessarily the actual problem. Just one specific symptom. This is the problem. Monopolistic behaviours, individually are 90% under-water, ilegible, hard to prosecute and fixing the narrow issue you have identified and proved in court doesn't necessarily help. Some specific monopolistic behaviour isn't the point. That said, I agree with Matt at the less specific level. Monopolies are a problem, and growing rapidly. I just think these things have to be addressed very broadly to make any difference. Classify monopolies as monopolies and apply specific rules to them. For example, "the right to be forgotten," cookie laws, data disclosure mandates, user generated copyright violations... all these highly relevant to a Google or FB. They're not as important, and much more burdensome, for the average business. These laws often exist for monopolies. Apply them specifically to them. A lot of the section 230 discussion should (imo) take this direction. I would even be in favour of a monopolism tax. Own over 20% of the digital ad market, pay an excise tax on revenue. This would encourage competition and diversity, and also makes sense considering that such monopolies generate extra profits at the expense of the economy. Tax all monopoly mergers, or ban them... not specific mergers. IE, FB have a monopolistic position in social media. No mergers for you. Let those acquired companies compete with FB instead of widening its moat. If a court/legislator is going into the nitty gritty of how the monopoly works, what monopolistic behaviours exist and such... the actions still needs to be broad. If amazon or google are using a monopoly over a (literal) marketplace to secure a monopoly as a supplier to that marketplace.... break that up. Make adwords a separate company to search. Separate amazon's marketplace business from the retail business. Don't let them create a delivery business. etc. Trying to act narrowly is pointless. Any ruling on the nuances of how amazon uses data from their marketplace business to help their retail business is pointless. Instead, recognize that there's a structural problem. Amazon run the market and also a retail business. They're using that monopolistically. That's a bad structure, and any specific bad thing amazon does within that structure is not relevant. The structure itself is relevant. That's the whole premise of antitrust in the first place.
raxxorrax 6y ago
The problem is that you can just starve any competition when you are large enough. Amazon did that with a lot of competitors. On the console market you can it see very clearly, although here two behemoths are fighting it out. Following Microsofts own statements and that from their sales team, Teams was indeed free to lure more users. I don't think this particular issue is a problem, but the overall structure of tech enterprises is a problem. At least when it hits consumers instead of competitors at one point.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  > The problem is that you can just starve any competition when you are large enough. Amazon did that with a lot of competitors. Amazon did that by offering superior prices, customer service, product range, delivery, etc. That's only a problem if Amazon raises prices or cuts quality after it's competitors are vanquished. What we've observed is just the opposite. Amazon continue to relentlessly push lower prices, better customer experience and faster delivery. Competition is not a goal in and of itself. It's merely a means to the end of improving consumer welfare. Antitrust law is careful about this distinction. It's not illegal to be a monopoly because you delight you consistently delight your customers much than your competitors. In fact just the opposite, restraining a superior product from growing its marketshare would be actively harmful to consumer welfare.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    No, there are clearly other limits as well. You can also see it with in retail and agriculture. Producers get exploited in the name of the customer. Retails wants as few suppliers as possible and left unchecked, it just reaches unsustainable proportions that certainly are unhealthy in a lot of ways.
cafed00d 6y ago
Do'h! Realized I made a typo :') > That modesty sound right, imho Meant to say: "That doesn't sound right, imho"

Hammershaft 6y ago

An off the cuff idea I haven't really thought through the implications of: What if these (somewhat arbitrary) product categories were enforced, but instead of preventing different products from integrating, we mandated they be composable over documented APIs? That way we could get some of the benefits of integration, but without the intensely anti competitive nature of walled garden apps?

weego 6y ago
The net result would be Govt vs Megacorps tied up in a decade of litigation arguing what the terms 'composable' and 'API' mean
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  As opposed to decades of companies and governments arguing in court what constitutes a monopoly? I mean, composability would just be the intended net result, not a part of the legal framework of the mandate. I think you could also avoid using the word API entirely. I could see the end result being similiar to how default app selection works in Android. That said, I still haven't sat down and thought through the unintended side effects.

pjc50 6y ago

The more integration, the less competition. The software competitive scene is fairly good at the moment, and the open web remains an escape hatch, but the risk of too tight integration is that startups become impossible.

collyw 6y ago
Would that be the case if open standards were used?
- pjc50 6y ago
  Arguably if it's an open interface it's not "integrated". You certainly lose the product improvement and co-design benefits of tight integration when you have to run it past a standard committee. Or you end up with "open standard with proprietary extension" (bane of everything from HTML to opengl)
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Let's aim for integration on equal footing, then. No special APIs for vendor only, and no ToC clauses prohibiting third-party clients/integrations. I don't know how to work around the "COM problem", though - IIRC, your product can have just as deep integrations with Outlook & Office as Teams has, if you're willing to throw man-hours at dealing with the clumsiness of COM. This understandably advantages a company with lots of money to spend and direct access to people who develop the platform. Some non-MS products still manage to ship with deep integrations, but in my experience, they tend to be fragile. That said, I feel it would be a tremendous help for both competition and integration, if some form of "can't restrict access to a service to vendor-owned clients" clause entered the law. It's kind of my problem with products being turned into services - service providers currently have way too much power over their customers/users.
tannhaeuser 6y ago
> The software competitive scene is fairly good at the moment, and the open web remains an escape hatch Can't agree really. On the operating system front, it's Linux-only at this point. And the "Linux community" has completed its long way to the dark side, with RedHat paying devs to subvert the portability Unix/POSIX has always stood for, with systemd and the rush to containers. For a perspective, consider Docker was originally a way to equalize distro-specific libs and quirks; RedHat and Kubernetes essentially deprecating Docker (and adding unbelievable amounts of code to replace it as infrastructure) just means a central entity calls the shots now. When the problem of non-uniform libs is entirely created by RedHat and too many distros themselves. In reality, starved core F/OSS packages haven't changed in a decade or more. But enterprise cloud deals are just too sweet, so change for change's sake it is. In that context, it makes sense that RedHat has shutdown CentOS now. On the web, it's even worse. There are no "browser vendors" except Google and Apple left, and Google is gatekeeping so-called web standards. Recently, HTTP and DNS is up for grabs as well. Hail monopolies.

nverno 6y ago

Agreed. It sounds like the author is envisioning a society where regulators have a hell of a lot of power- would every price change a company made need to be given the OK? I guess the litagators would have a field day. Doesn't every profitable company have a monopoly on its niche space? Not all monopolies are equal

oblio 6y ago
For physical products we have anti-dumping laws. You can't abuse your monopoly power to sell products below cost in order to take out competition. We need something like this for software products.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  How would anti-dumping principals be applied to f/oss? For a long time, Ubuntu's number one bug was the existance of Windows. If company A is releasing a product for free, with the stated aim of damaging company B's market share, how is that not dumping? https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1 "Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug which Ubuntu and other projects are meant to fix."

shp0ngle 6y ago

I have no idea how that happened, but one day, I found Teams suddenly automatically installed on my spouses computer; and not only auto-installed, but it auto-started on Windows start. How? Why? It was probably bundled with Office and/or Windows. MS got news-breaking fine for far less with Netscape before. But, nobody cares in 2020.

chippytea 6y ago
Microsoft was auto installing Teams with auto startup on Windows Server 2019 for a while. And you could only access settings to turn off auto startup if you logged in or changed some registry settings.
interestica 6y ago
Seems like MS literally installed this about two hours ago for me with a forced update on Win10
- shp0ngle 6y ago
  I wonder if it's Office thing or they just push it to all Windows users.
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    It's an O365 thing, it has nothing to do with Windows. It also depends on a few things with the subscription and settings, so everyone won't get it automatically and if you do it's easy* to turn off. *Once you know where to look.
    - interestica 6y ago
      >It's an O365 thing It's now a "Microsoft 365" thing.
em500 6y ago
It should be well known by now that if you're running Windows 10, Microsoft is your system administrator, and can control (at least technically) exactly what runs on your computer. Unless maybe if you really put time/effort into stopping that (if it's still possible at all). This is not meant to be judgemental. I'm actually of the opinion this is better in general than leaving sysadmin duties to the general public, which was largely the situation in the 1990s / early 2000s. But outsourcing this to Microsoft does of course have it's downsides, like you just experienced.

oaiey 6y ago

I agree with that. The market is full of chat software, some better, some worse. Microsoft for example had Skype (for Business). All they did is the consequent next step and integrate chat with the rest of their productivity suite (as everyone else in the market does). They basically follow Google Workspaces which innovated many things in the last 10 years. It is an oligarchy but it is not that Microsoft is owning the market. I think it is sad that Slack is loosing independence in the the market. However, I blame investors far more than the market. When I understand it right, they yearly profit is in the 100s of millions. It is a financial decision of them.

cblconfederate 6y ago

> world do we want to live in where regulators delineate product areas. The same world where they dictate what is intellectual property

Gravityloss 6y ago

Many people using Outlook run Teams meetings, because it's just one button click away in Outlook. Compare to others where you have to go to a different tool and create a meeting and copy-paste a link. The antitrust way would be to have Outlook have buttons for a lot of different meeting services out of the box. Many don't require installing any software (Google meet for example). It's all just API:s.

Gh0stRAT 6y ago
My employer's Outlook does have a button for a competing meeting service. (WebEx) Some people are starting to use Teams for their meetings now because some of them like it better than WebEx, but it is exactly the same amount of effort to schedule either of them directly from Outlook.
- Gravityloss 6y ago
  In my opinion, Webex is very old and for example Linux compatibility is worse than Teams.
addicted 6y ago
Anyone can build a 1 click experience similar to the Teams add-in for outlook.
- Gravityloss 6y ago
  So some kind of plugin?
  - bradstewart 6y ago
    Yep. For instance, there's a Zoom plugin that puts a "make a Zoom meeting" button right there as well.
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    That's how teams does it, yes.

lucideer 6y ago

> What kind of world do we want to live in where regulators delineate product areas. I'd love to try living in this world. What are the downsides you see?

zo1 6y ago

In my view, it would probably be a non-issue if the "anti-trust" regulations simply required interoperability to a sufficient degree. Then you can bundle and integrate to your hearts-content, but you have to stick to open APIs or allow easy usage of your own API freely.

taurath 6y ago

When the cost of replication moves towards zero, the loss leaders pricing move towards free. My gut tells me this is probably quite bad overall because it is de facto total market control but only for those that are either incumbents or can somehow compete with free. It smells of AT&T, Comcast, and other “locked in” vendors, aka the most loathed companies in the nation. At a minimum it raises the bar of entry to a market.

chii 6y ago

> we run the risk of creating separate product areas and none of them working well together or, have mandated open apis that _force_ products to integrate. That's what the web is today (mostly). Links, and embedable content (like frames). APIs and data. The reason companies don't do this - as demonstrated fairly recently by google with their removal of xmpp protocols from google chat - is that open apis prevent lock. Open apis allows others to compete, and it is not in the interest of the existing incumbent. IBM made a crucial mistake that apple didn't make when IBM opened the specs for their IBM compatible machines and drove down the price of PCs to what you see today - otherwise, i would predict that PCs would be just as expensive and incompatible as apple computers were.

abhinav22 6y ago
Agree wholeheartedly although maybe not on the IBM part. But all these big tech firms are really closing up technology and avoiding open apis and competition with other players.
silon42 6y ago
Not apis, protocols preferably.
- chii 6y ago
  API and protocols can be used interchangably in this case.
thrower123 6y ago
The problem with common APIs is that they are a lowest common denominator. I deal with this all the time with Microsoft's Bot Framework - which is somewhat shitty open protocol for writing chat bots that plug into a whole range of messaging platforms, including Teams and Slack. It's functional, more or less, but it by necessity has to target the lowest common set of capabilities of the services it plugs into, and that makes it clunky as hell. And you still end up having to write a bunch of bodgy platform-specific code to get it to do anything interesting.
- 6y ago

dustingetz 6y ago

the reason they don’t integrate well is it’s not in their interests, having already consumed global markets they are out of growth and need to own the whole ecosystem to grow. imagine if Peco electricity only worked with Peco houses.

addicted 6y ago

I am not the biggest supporter of MS’s anti competitive nature. But I find the complaints against Teams to be suspect. Primarily because Teams is not adding anything new to the MS office bundle. It’s a slightly better replacement (arguably!) for Skype. There’s barely a feature in MS Teams that isn’t, at best, an enhancement on what MS was already delivering within Skype.

simion314 6y ago

IMO integration will force us stuck in a point of local optimum, Apple,Tesla,Microsoft,Google will decide what this point is and you will have to like it, changing a wallpaper will need to be approved, starting an application will be also approved and logged, social media apps or groups will also be censored to protect you. You will not be able to tweak a color or replace the shitty browser with a better one (Microsoft would have loved to have Apple privileges and force all it's users to use IE). If you don't like regulators deviding, maybe we should ask users ?

thanksforthe42 6y ago
Microsoft already lost this battle. Google has decided not to fight the battle. Apple has their segment walled in like North Korea. Tesla uses religion to control their followers.

rmrfstar 6y ago

Take a look at the issue from another point of view. Predatory pricing and bundling are two destructive ways to compete. Predatory pricing is just dumping. You sell something below cost until your competition goes out of business, then you either raise prices or hold prices constant but reduce quality (eg Amazon selling counterfeit books). Bundling is requiring people to purchase A+B in combination. An example would be a gourmet ice-cream maker that is actually famous for chocolate but only sells 50% chocolate, 50% vanilla. You can see this move as a combination of bundling and predatory pricing. Microsoft did this with Defender too. Their strategy is to starve nascent competitors for revenue in a niche area so they can never mount a direct attack on the core business.

willyg123 6y ago
> then you either raise prices or hold prices constant but reduce quality (eg Amazon selling counterfeit books) I can't think of one example of a company killing a competitor via free products and then raising prices. And let's not pretend Amazon's counterfeit book problem was part of the business plan.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bearcobra 6y ago
Defender is a good example of why we might not want regulators to decide product categories. To me it seems perfectly reasonable that an operating system would offer a malware protection feature. Just because a feature wasn't included in a previous version and an aftermarket offering was developed, shouldn't mean that a vendor can't improve the product by adding it in.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  The regulator wouldn't have to do anything more invasive than say, "Microsoft will charge its development cost or greater for any additional features that are currently offered commercially". Yes, that would create some accounting overhead. But it's a small price to pay to keep Godzilla from eating the villagers' livestock.

dalbasal 6y ago

>> I see Microsoft integrating Teams into their productivity product bundle as feature. I agree with you on details, but with Matt on the overall sentiment. Most thinking on monopolies is pretty flawed, based in legalistic precedent and analogy to near anecdotes. The 1998 antitrust case against MSFT's bundling of IE to kill netscape made sense in regards to precedent (eg IBM) and economic theory. It was never the primary issue irl and the court didn't fix it despite finding against msft. I don't think a regulator or court can just pinpoint "monopolistic behaviours" and fix it. The MSFT case proves the point. Prosecutors won, but it didn't matter much. IE still dominated. Competition waned for a while. In retrospect, the whole thing seems irrelevant or trivial to MSFT's monopoly as a whole. We are not better or worse of because of the case, probably. A recent example is Adwords' EU case. Their dominant market share in search and search ads gave them all their minor competitors' data which was used to maintain their monopoly. The court gave google a $1.5bn fine that changed nothing. Now that precedent will be used in the US & EU to go after Amazon. They clearly use their marketplace to gain data for their retail business and skim any cream uncovered by their partners. Whatever specific anti-competition behaviours prosecutors were able to uncover and prove are anecdotal. They "prove" that monopoly issues exist, but they aren't necessarily the actual problem. Just one specific symptom. This is the problem. Monopolistic behaviours, individually are 90% under-water, ilegible, hard to prosecute and fixing the narrow issue you have identified and proved in court doesn't necessarily help. Some specific monopolistic behaviour isn't the point. That said, I agree with Matt at the less specific level. Monopolies are a problem, and growing rapidly. I just think these things have to be addressed very broadly to make any difference. Classify monopolies as monopolies and apply specific rules to them. For example, "the right to be forgotten," cookie laws, data disclosure mandates, user generated copyright violations... all these highly relevant to a Google or FB. They're not as important, and much more burdensome, for the average business. These laws often exist for monopolies. Apply them specifically to them. A lot of the section 230 discussion should (imo) take this direction. I would even be in favour of a monopolism tax. Own over 20% of the digital ad market, pay an excise tax on revenue. This would encourage competition and diversity, and also makes sense considering that such monopolies generate extra profits at the expense of the economy. Tax all monopoly mergers, or ban them... not specific mergers. IE, FB have a monopolistic position in social media. No mergers for you. Let those acquired companies compete with FB instead of widening its moat. If a court/legislator is going into the nitty gritty of how the monopoly works, what monopolistic behaviours exist and such... the actions still needs to be broad. If amazon or google are using a monopoly over a (literal) marketplace to secure a monopoly as a supplier to that marketplace.... break that up. Make adwords a separate company to search. Separate amazon's marketplace business from the retail business. Don't let them create a delivery business. etc. Trying to act narrowly is pointless. Any ruling on the nuances of how amazon uses data from their marketplace business to help their retail business is pointless. Instead, recognize that there's a structural problem. Amazon run the market and also a retail business. They're using that monopolistically. That's a bad structure, and any specific bad thing amazon does within that structure is not relevant. The structure itself is relevant. That's the whole premise of antitrust in the first place.

raxxorrax 6y ago

The problem is that you can just starve any competition when you are large enough. Amazon did that with a lot of competitors. On the console market you can it see very clearly, although here two behemoths are fighting it out. Following Microsofts own statements and that from their sales team, Teams was indeed free to lure more users. I don't think this particular issue is a problem, but the overall structure of tech enterprises is a problem. At least when it hits consumers instead of competitors at one point.

dcolkitt 6y ago
> The problem is that you can just starve any competition when you are large enough. Amazon did that with a lot of competitors. Amazon did that by offering superior prices, customer service, product range, delivery, etc. That's only a problem if Amazon raises prices or cuts quality after it's competitors are vanquished. What we've observed is just the opposite. Amazon continue to relentlessly push lower prices, better customer experience and faster delivery. Competition is not a goal in and of itself. It's merely a means to the end of improving consumer welfare. Antitrust law is careful about this distinction. It's not illegal to be a monopoly because you delight you consistently delight your customers much than your competitors. In fact just the opposite, restraining a superior product from growing its marketshare would be actively harmful to consumer welfare.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  No, there are clearly other limits as well. You can also see it with in retail and agriculture. Producers get exploited in the name of the customer. Retails wants as few suppliers as possible and left unchecked, it just reaches unsustainable proportions that certainly are unhealthy in a lot of ways.

cafed00d 6y ago

Do'h! Realized I made a typo :') > That modesty sound right, imho Meant to say: "That doesn't sound right, imho"