3 ms·
The point is not that the people aware of the situation can avoid using these services, the point is that Microsoft (just like Apple and Google) is abusing its
by agust 5y ago
The point is not that the people aware of the situation can avoid using these services, the point is that Microsoft (just like Apple and Google) is abusing its control over the OS to entice millions of people to use their own services. This is not an even market, competition is distorted. How could better competitors emerge in such situation? As if the unlimited fundings these companies have was not enough.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoWhy shouldn't a company promote its own products? It is not "abuse of control", that is such bullshit. Also I have been using Windows for decades and never touched MS Office or Teams. It's not that hard.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoWhy shouldn't companies agree to work together for mutual benefit, like tech companies agreeing to hold down wages, like they did recently. Or is that too 'free market'?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoFine by me, actually. What exactly is the rationale for making disallowing such a thing? Unions are doing the same thing, btw.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoYou seem to be unfamiliar with the absolute basics of cartels, collusion and antitrust law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoWhat is the point of your comment? I am aware that there were agreements between the companies. My question was what is the rationale behind making such a thing illegal. Your link doesn't answer that question.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoIts a bit like asking why stabbings are illegal everywhere, from Switzerland to Vietnam. Because that's nor a market, that mafia rule.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoWhat the fuck no it is not the same. Stabbings are murder. At the very least you can argue with Kant's imperative that you shouldn't do what you don't want others to do to you. It seems to me agreeing not to poach other companies employees is more in the line with Kant's imperative. If anything, poaching other companies employees would be more like murder. Society seems to already have realized that, that is why they call it "poaching".
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"poaching other companies employees would be more like murder." If you consider improving someone's quality of life by offering better salary to be 'like murder', and do not recognise that cartels, illegal in every civilised nation, are bad for the economy, then I cannot fathom what I could possibly write to get through to you
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoNot all economists agree that cartels are bad. Also they are usually about prices for selling stuff, not for buying stuff (as in buying employees). Just because companies have agreements doesn't make it a cartel. It would be stupid if companies wouldn't be allowed to have agreements. And as mentioned before, workers cartels (unions) seem to be legal in most "civilized" places. Or think about another example: poaching somebodies wife. That also seems to be frowned upon in many places. Yet, it is just an agreement that nobody should make somebody else's wife a better offer. People tend to forget with all those rules that they could also be on the receiving end of things. You may not be a worker forever, maybe one of these days you want to become independent and run your own company. It would be a shame if people effectively weren't allowed to do so anymore.
- maccolgan 5y agoWait until you realize unions sometimes are legalized cartels of employees.