5 ms·

Can you elaborate on this point a bit? It seems to me that you are saying Microsoft should not be allowed to release their own version of Slack and Zoom for fre

by epups 4y ago

Can you elaborate on this point a bit? It seems to me that you are saying Microsoft should not be allowed to release their own version of Slack and Zoom for free. I don't see the argument for that, especially since Microsoft itself has in the past released free software that does essentially what these other tools also do, and largely inspired them (Skype, for example).

azalemeth 4y ago
Sure. > It seems to me that you are saying Microsoft should not be allowed to release their own version of Slack and Zoom for free. That is exactly what I'm saying, because it is against EU competition law as Microsoft has a dominant position in the market -- the "plain English" guide to competition law simply states: [1] If your company has a large market share, it holds a dominant position and must take particular care not to: • charge unreasonably high prices which would exploit customers • charge unrealistically low prices which may drive competitors out of the market • discriminate between customers • force certain trading conditions on your business partners Microsoft does arguably all of these with different products to some level. Zoom, Slack, Discord etc are all paid-for products with a cost that, prior to February 2020, companies paid for separately. Microsoft then came along with Teams and released it as part of a certain tier of M365 subscription for free. Whilst Zoom and friends have not been driven out of the market, they have suffered as a result of it and what was a burgeoning industry, including with "freemium" or "paid support" FOSS models like Jitsi, have suffered as the corporate behemoths of the world use Teams. The real proof of the pudding is the fact that most users hate Teams: it's widely regarded as being not as good as its competitors and yet is massively used. Why? Monopolistic business practices. [1] https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/competition-between-businesses/competition-rules-eu/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/competit...
- epups 4y ago
  Thank you for the clarification. I understand where you (and the law) are coming from, but when it comes to software it is hard to say what are "unrealistically low prices". Slack and Zoom also have free tiers, so how is it unrealistic for Microsoft to offer that as well? Looking at Google for example, would you say that they should be forced to charge for their services to reflect their costs? I doubt that either of these would be a good thing.
- ahtihn 4y ago
  > it as part of a certain tier of M365 subscription for free. So is it free or not? If it's part of a subscription, it's just included in the cost. The subscription already included a whole suite of different software, what makes Teams special in that regard? Who decides that Teams is a separate product and not just a feature of the O365 product?
  - azalemeth 4y ago
    These are all good questions, and you could have asked them about IE and Windows – where it was found to be anticompetitive behaviour. The answer to "who decides" is the national competition and markets authorities of the EU's member states, or the EU's competition commission. The main issue from a legal point of view is whether Microsoft is exploiting its dominant position in business services to make its competitors suffer unduly, if it was not dominant in another area – which you could make an argument for, in my opinion.

by epups 4y ago

azalemeth 4y ago

Sure. > It seems to me that you are saying Microsoft should not be allowed to release their own version of Slack and Zoom for free. That is exactly what I'm saying, because it is against EU competition law as Microsoft has a dominant position in the market -- the "plain English" guide to competition law simply states: [1] If your company has a large market share, it holds a dominant position and must take particular care not to: • charge unreasonably high prices which would exploit customers • charge unrealistically low prices which may drive competitors out of the market • discriminate between customers • force certain trading conditions on your business partners Microsoft does arguably all of these with different products to some level. Zoom, Slack, Discord etc are all paid-for products with a cost that, prior to February 2020, companies paid for separately. Microsoft then came along with Teams and released it as part of a certain tier of M365 subscription for free. Whilst Zoom and friends have not been driven out of the market, they have suffered as a result of it and what was a burgeoning industry, including with "freemium" or "paid support" FOSS models like Jitsi, have suffered as the corporate behemoths of the world use Teams. The real proof of the pudding is the fact that most users hate Teams: it's widely regarded as being not as good as its competitors and yet is massively used. Why? Monopolistic business practices. [1] https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/competition-between-businesses/competition-rules-eu/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/competit...

epups 4y ago
Thank you for the clarification. I understand where you (and the law) are coming from, but when it comes to software it is hard to say what are "unrealistically low prices". Slack and Zoom also have free tiers, so how is it unrealistic for Microsoft to offer that as well? Looking at Google for example, would you say that they should be forced to charge for their services to reflect their costs? I doubt that either of these would be a good thing.
ahtihn 4y ago
> it as part of a certain tier of M365 subscription for free. So is it free or not? If it's part of a subscription, it's just included in the cost. The subscription already included a whole suite of different software, what makes Teams special in that regard? Who decides that Teams is a separate product and not just a feature of the O365 product?
- azalemeth 4y ago
  These are all good questions, and you could have asked them about IE and Windows – where it was found to be anticompetitive behaviour. The answer to "who decides" is the national competition and markets authorities of the EU's member states, or the EU's competition commission. The main issue from a legal point of view is whether Microsoft is exploiting its dominant position in business services to make its competitors suffer unduly, if it was not dominant in another area – which you could make an argument for, in my opinion.