I get what you're saying, I just don't see how it's substantially different from Microsoft buying Bungie. And even if it's the same and we've decided we don't l

I get what you're saying, I just don't see how it's substantially different from Microsoft buying Bungie. And even if it's the same and we've decided we don't like that practice today (which I'm OK with!), I'm struggling to imagine its the best use of their resources. Ultimately, Meta bought an application developer for their walled garden device, not a competitive platform in itself. Purchases of this nature seem to happen fairly regularly in the b2c space without attracting regulatory scrutiny (Apple buying Siri/Shazam, Microsoft buying Minecraft). Am I harmed as a consumer because Siri is not compatible Android, or because Halo is not compatible with the PlayStation? I guess so, but it doesn't feel meaningful enough to merit FTC censure. Maybe the FTC is changing it's mind, and thinks that acquiring neutral studios and making them platform exclusive is now anti-competitive? But I don't see that in their press release -- I just see claims that Meta is going to make the "VR fitness" niche anti-competitive, unless the FTC steps in. Basically, I guess my question is: is this niche big/important enough for the FTC to be allocating resources towards after? Personally, I'd rather see them shooting at bigger targets. Maybe they have leaked information about Meta executives' detailed motives for the purchase, akin to the WhatsApp emails/memos, that will make this an open and shut case that doesn't require much attention. And I do appreciate that they're trying to keep Meta from dominating VR the way they dominated social. However, I can't help but feel like it'd be more impactful to prosecute Meta for refusing to support non-Meta Oauth identity providers for creating a headset account, for example. Tear down the walls in the garden, rather than tsk-tsk the garden constructor for imprisoning some company inside the garden.