3 ms·
It's not anti-competitive because there are plenty of other options available (and anyone can go and make their own if they're willing to invest the time). Ant
by rglover 4y ago
It's not anti-competitive because there are plenty of other options available (and anyone can go and make their own if they're willing to invest the time).
Anti-competitive would assume that there's no other viable option or means for replacement.
FWIW, I think Adobe is a shit company but calling daddy government in to thump them for (presumably) taking away or breaking the favorite toy sets a terrible precedent. If anything, this is pro-competitive because it should light a fire under the ass of indie's to replace it (which is already underway by the looks of Penpot).
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago> but calling daddy government I pay for them, I may as well try to get them to do something that benefits me for the astronomical taxes I'll be paying this year.
- rglover 4y agoGiving them more power isn't the way to do that. It hurts you long-term because you're basically saying that individuals/companies are not responsible enough to make decisions on their own (and need the government to step in). Today they're helping you, tomorrow they're increasing your taxes to pay for their "increased efforts in policing anti-competitive behavior in private industry." It's a beach made of quicksand.