3 ms·

Bundling is anticompetitive and illegal. The MS ecosystem deserves close antitrust scrutiny.

scarface74 4y ago
So in that case are the following “illegal” - Apple One - Microsoft Office - Amazon Prime - Google GSuite - Adobe Creative Cloud - Salesforce bundling SFDC with Concur
- azalemeth 4y ago
  Honestly, I think the regulators should look at basically all of those things. Here in Europe scrutiny is building and a lot of those organisations do party hard and play loose with the rules. Microsoft is famously anticompetitive, but Adobe, Google and Apple can't be far behind in their respective areas.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Really? So you really think companies shouldn’t be able to sell software that works together bundled together? Why stop there? Phones and computers shouldn’t be “bundled” with operating systems? Computers shouldn’t be “bundled” with sound hardware? Where does it stop?
    - cratermoon 4y ago
      Bundling is fine. Bundling by a company that is a monopoly in the space is (or rather, used to be) a violation of antitrust law. But see Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, especially sections IIA and IIIB: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
      - scarface74 4y ago
        So in that case, every cable company is a local monopoly and shouldn’t be allowed to bundle channels. Doesn’t anyone see how silly this sounds in 2022? Disney is by far the largest entertainment conglomerate. Should they not be allowed to bundle Hulu, Disney and ESPN? Intel has over 80% of the PC market, how much hardware should they be able to bundle on their motherboard? And HN has a habit of calling any big company a “monopoly”. Amazon only has 56% share of e-commerce and a tiny share of all commerce in the US But getting back to MS Office, I have three “office suites” right now on my phone - all three made by companies worth 1 trillion dollars - Google, Microsoft, and Apple. There is no “monopoly” in the IDP space.
        cratermoon 4y ago
        > every cable company is a local monopoly A regulated monopoly. Key difference. Although of course today "regulated" is largely a legal fiction. Nevertheless, it's not so simple as pointing out who has the most market share. It's a pretty messy area of the law, and the field is heavily tilted by money, even more so than most areas of the law.
        scarface74 4y ago
        It’s not a “messy” area at all. It’s just a misunderstanding of the law. If what you’re saying is truly “illegal”, no court of law has found it so since Office was introduced over 30 years ago. What’s more likely, that “bundling” as you define it is illegal and has never been prosecuted in over 3 decades or that you don’t understand the law?
        cratermoon 4y ago
        It's far more likely I don't understand the law, but the discussion had turned from bundling to monopoly and antitrust questions, and I stand by my statements, as confirmed in the source I linked.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  They all deserve some scrutiny to determine their legality, yes.

So in that case are the following “illegal” - Apple One - Microsoft Office - Amazon Prime - Google GSuite - Adobe Creative Cloud - Salesforce bundling SFDC with Concur

azalemeth 4y ago
Honestly, I think the regulators should look at basically all of those things. Here in Europe scrutiny is building and a lot of those organisations do party hard and play loose with the rules. Microsoft is famously anticompetitive, but Adobe, Google and Apple can't be far behind in their respective areas.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Really? So you really think companies shouldn’t be able to sell software that works together bundled together? Why stop there? Phones and computers shouldn’t be “bundled” with operating systems? Computers shouldn’t be “bundled” with sound hardware? Where does it stop?
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    Bundling is fine. Bundling by a company that is a monopoly in the space is (or rather, used to be) a violation of antitrust law. But see Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, especially sections IIA and IIIB: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So in that case, every cable company is a local monopoly and shouldn’t be allowed to bundle channels. Doesn’t anyone see how silly this sounds in 2022? Disney is by far the largest entertainment conglomerate. Should they not be allowed to bundle Hulu, Disney and ESPN? Intel has over 80% of the PC market, how much hardware should they be able to bundle on their motherboard? And HN has a habit of calling any big company a “monopoly”. Amazon only has 56% share of e-commerce and a tiny share of all commerce in the US But getting back to MS Office, I have three “office suites” right now on my phone - all three made by companies worth 1 trillion dollars - Google, Microsoft, and Apple. There is no “monopoly” in the IDP space.
      - cratermoon 4y ago
        > every cable company is a local monopoly A regulated monopoly. Key difference. Although of course today "regulated" is largely a legal fiction. Nevertheless, it's not so simple as pointing out who has the most market share. It's a pretty messy area of the law, and the field is heavily tilted by money, even more so than most areas of the law.
        scarface74 4y ago
        It’s not a “messy” area at all. It’s just a misunderstanding of the law. If what you’re saying is truly “illegal”, no court of law has found it so since Office was introduced over 30 years ago. What’s more likely, that “bundling” as you define it is illegal and has never been prosecuted in over 3 decades or that you don’t understand the law?
        cratermoon 4y ago
        It's far more likely I don't understand the law, but the discussion had turned from bundling to monopoly and antitrust questions, and I stand by my statements, as confirmed in the source I linked.
parkingrift 4y ago
They all deserve some scrutiny to determine their legality, yes.