4 ms·

Does modern MS stifle competition and prevent effective capitalism? I don't think I've heard anyone beat that drum and get a band marching behind it in years.

Does modern MS stifle competition and prevent effective capitalism? I don't think I've heard anyone beat that drum and get a band marching behind it in years. This is the same Microsoft that's seen its desktop market share slowly erode since 2013, right? The one holding 1.9% of smartphone marketshare? The one so impossible to regulate that the FTC is regulating it right now (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/...)?

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
> Does modern MS stifle competition and prevent effective capitalism? Of course they do, and anyone who is confused by their marketing into thinking otherwise is just plain blind. The last someone "beat that drum" was none other than the british competition regulator aka CMA not _two months ago_, which among maaany other things literally complained Microsoft was still using their monopoly power to prevent gaming on desktop Linux. Stay classy, MS. > We found that the Microsoft Cloud Remedy had several shortcomings: [..] Microsoft would not have to supply Activision’s full range of games to providers that may decide to operate using a non-Windows PC operating system (eg Linux)
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  The European Commission respectfully disagrees. https://gamerant.com/cma-overstated-microsoft-cloud-gaming-share/ https://gamerant.com/cma-overstated-microsoft-cloud-gaming-s...
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    Ironically, I already predicted that the EC would likely bend over and accept MS's ridiculous proposal, but we would never know since the CMA rejecting it first would leave the EC in a untenable position. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772912 I guess it is not as untenable as I thought, and the EC believes it can just throw shit towards the CMA until they get away with it. I also have my confirmation on whether the EC would be stupid enough to accept the deal. Anyway, you cannot disagree with the fact that MS still _tried_ to stifle Linux, which is the point (and the part that I'm quoting). And arguably both as server and as a desktop OS.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      Sure, back in the day. And they don't go out of their way to support it in the modern era. ...but this goes back to the US interpretation of "monopoly practice" vs. the European interpretation. Where was the consumer harm? How does MS "stifle" an OS that you can just pick up from a CD, floppy disk, or the Internet and drop on a machine you own? History seems to have shown "You can't." In general, the biggest hindrance to Linux desktop adoption is the Linux UX (and for games, the experience of building one with the libraries available on Linux [https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-linux/ https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-li...]), not anything Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter) have done to it.
      - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        "Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works. It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decades. And also despite the fact their marketing dept says that "MS loves Linux" and the armchair analysts say that MS makes money from Linux servers.
        shadowgovt 3y ago
        Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS? They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your architecture is too far divorced from the existing ecosystems after the ecosystems grow sufficiently large, it doesn't matter if your solution is slightly better... Developers don't want to invest the time starting over. Monopoly protection is a lot of things, but it isn't a mechanism for somebody to try and compete with DC power for long distance transmission when the world has already wired up AC.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pie420 3y ago
Of course. It controls 90% + of the global PC desktop OS market. Every single business runs on Windows, and a tiny fraction on Apple. It's a classic monopoly, kin of like when US Steel had some refineries and technically competed with Standard Oil in the oil industry, but only on paper, and mostly served to create the illusion of competition.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

> Does modern MS stifle competition and prevent effective capitalism? Of course they do, and anyone who is confused by their marketing into thinking otherwise is just plain blind. The last someone "beat that drum" was none other than the british competition regulator aka CMA not _two months ago_, which among maaany other things literally complained Microsoft was still using their monopoly power to prevent gaming on desktop Linux. Stay classy, MS. > We found that the Microsoft Cloud Remedy had several shortcomings: [..] Microsoft would not have to supply Activision’s full range of games to providers that may decide to operate using a non-Windows PC operating system (eg Linux)

shadowgovt 3y ago
The European Commission respectfully disagrees. https://gamerant.com/cma-overstated-microsoft-cloud-gaming-share/ https://gamerant.com/cma-overstated-microsoft-cloud-gaming-s...
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  Ironically, I already predicted that the EC would likely bend over and accept MS's ridiculous proposal, but we would never know since the CMA rejecting it first would leave the EC in a untenable position. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772912 I guess it is not as untenable as I thought, and the EC believes it can just throw shit towards the CMA until they get away with it. I also have my confirmation on whether the EC would be stupid enough to accept the deal. Anyway, you cannot disagree with the fact that MS still _tried_ to stifle Linux, which is the point (and the part that I'm quoting). And arguably both as server and as a desktop OS.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Sure, back in the day. And they don't go out of their way to support it in the modern era. ...but this goes back to the US interpretation of "monopoly practice" vs. the European interpretation. Where was the consumer harm? How does MS "stifle" an OS that you can just pick up from a CD, floppy disk, or the Internet and drop on a machine you own? History seems to have shown "You can't." In general, the biggest hindrance to Linux desktop adoption is the Linux UX (and for games, the experience of building one with the libraries available on Linux [https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-linux/ https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-li...]), not anything Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter) have done to it.
    - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
      "Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works. It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decades. And also despite the fact their marketing dept says that "MS loves Linux" and the armchair analysts say that MS makes money from Linux servers.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS? They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your architecture is too far divorced from the existing ecosystems after the ecosystems grow sufficiently large, it doesn't matter if your solution is slightly better... Developers don't want to invest the time starting over. Monopoly protection is a lot of things, but it isn't a mechanism for somebody to try and compete with DC power for long distance transmission when the world has already wired up AC.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pie420 3y ago

Of course. It controls 90% + of the global PC desktop OS market. Every single business runs on Windows, and a tiny fraction on Apple. It's a classic monopoly, kin of like when US Steel had some refineries and technically competed with Standard Oil in the oil industry, but only on paper, and mostly served to create the illusion of competition.