5 ms·

When the fuck is this going to stop! Microsoft lost this monopolizing tactic in a court case decades ago. It seems either no one remembers this fact or that Mi

When the fuck is this going to stop! Microsoft lost this monopolizing tactic in a court case decades ago. It seems either no one remembers this fact or that Microsoft hopes it's so. Regulators will you please damn-well regulate. In simple English, do your fucking job.

passwordoops 3y ago
To be fair to the regulators, they have been busy lately: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-sues-block-novant-healths-acquisition-two-hospitals-community-health-systems https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/ftc-seeks-block-sanofis-acquisition-rare-disease-drug-threatens-sanofis-monopoly https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-action-leads-2-million-penalty-against-kubota-false-made-usa-claims https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/...
- hilbert42 3y ago
  Perhaps so. But they're too late the damage has been done. Unfortunately, they should have acted 30+ years ago. The need to regulate back then was just as obvious as it is now.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    What should they have done differently in the 90s, and what would the regulations have looked like?
    - hilbert42 3y ago
      Classed and regulated operating systems differently to applications. For example, the rules and regulations for building highways are very different to those for building and regulating motor vehicles even though one depends on the other. Microsoft would not have been able integrate Internet Explorer into Windows nor even the IP stack as these are actually applications. The whole world of security would have been different and more manageable not to mention much improved competition from other vendors.
cjblomqvist 3y ago
It's not the same situation as back then. 1. They don't have the same browser market share at all. 2. They don't have the same operating system market share they used to either (specifically, they lost the mobile space - which is how majority of people in the world access the internet). 3. It's easier to use another browser now on Windows then back when it was at its worst in 00s (where IE was more or less part of explorer.exe / core of Windows). Above can make a huge difference legally. Specifically your reference to the previous court case, which was built on point 1-2 above. Key word here being monopoly and how it's defined. Apple lived (until a few weeks ago, still do outside EU) in a world where it's OK to have it basically impossible to install another (real) browser on it's biggest OS, or install any app of your choosing without their blessing (and a 10-30% cut on revenue!) for that matter. It's complex for sure. It's unfortunate imo that Mozilla/FF got squashed by Chrome, and also made some questionable strategic decisions in the last 10-15 years. Performance, simplicity, stability and keeping up with me web tech being key USPs of Chrome, compared to competition. Note that absent from that list is monopolistic abuse (even though Google has it's fair share of that as well). In other words, you don't win the browser war by simply using monopolistic abuse as a strategy, you need to primarily win on value to your end users. That's at least how it's been in the past.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "It's not the same situation as back then. 1. They don't have the same browser market share at all." That's essentially irrelevant because (a) Microsoft complied with the Court's ruling and allowed other browsers to be installed without hindrance, that's not the situation now; (b) you're painting a picture as if Microsoft was disadvantaged by the situation now and thus it's unfair to impose such restrictions again this time. To that I'd add that in case you haven't noticed Microsoft has just passed three trillion in value, it's only second to Apple in achieving this milestone. Thus the changed situation hasn't disadvantaged it one iota. I'd maintain that Microsoft has only managed this incredible feat because throughout its 48-year life it has consistently used unacceptable, bullyboy monopolistic practices at every opportunity. Essentially, Microsoft's growth has been at the expence of competitors who haven't had the size and finacial power to stand up to its market dominance no matter how good their products were. Such bad behavior has screwed both the market and product development for everyone—small and medium-sized developers, hardware manufacturers and end users. Just about the only entity that hasn't been screwed by its unacceptable business practices is Microsoft itself. The most significant reason for Microsoft's unfettered growth is that the regulators have been asleep at the wheel for decades—no doubt encouraged to 'sleep' by millions plowed into lobbying. On the matter of Mozilla, I'm certainly not an apologist for the company, in fact over the years I've been very critical of Mozilla including here on HN. Yes, the dominance of Chrome from that other monopolist Google has had a lot to do with Firefox's downfall, but that said Mozilla has been shooting itself in the foot for decades. Why and how is pretty obvious and well known so I won't debate that here.
ARandomerDude 3y ago
Get help, man. Don’t let the internet make you this angry.
lostmsu 3y ago
Perhaps the monopoly law should be changed to adapt to multiple scales. E.g. you shouldn't be able to use product 1 that has 100Y market in A to create any advantage for product 2 in market B if you know user uses competitor in B who's market in B is < 10Y (e.g. 10x less than market of product 1). For example if you have 2B market in OS you should not be allowed to use OS to advertise your own browser to user who uses another browser with under 200M users. That would also cover Apple exerting power over 50,000 installation apps. And by "know" here I mean that if you know user is not using your product yet, you must check the condition or not be allowed to use the advantage (e.g. either you should see Chrome ads in Chrome, or Google cant advertise Chrome to Edge users).
- _heimdall 3y ago
  How would a regulation like that actually be enforced? Whenever a regulation compares against what you "know" it is usually pretty easy to just not look, or claim that you numbers were inaccurate, or that team A knew but team B which implemented feature didn't (potentially even claiming that's a privacy feature by protecting user data). Even more difficult, the stats needed would be owned by the same party. I.e. Microsoft would be the one collecting and owning data of what apps a user already installed, and Google would be doing the same for any pertinent data related to Chrome use and advertising. Its effectively a black box to regulators, they would be asking MS for their own internal data that both sides already know must fit a very specifically defined legal requirement. This is exactly how VW got away with fudging the numbers on diesel regulations for so long.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    That's why the knowing caveat. E.g. either you HAVE to advertise to your own users (so if your browser is already the default, you still have to show the notification to suggest to change), or you are treated as if you know, and then you can't advertise based on the 10x rule. To put it differently you can't hide ad for Chrome users and then pretend you did not know others used FF.
    - _heimdall 3y ago

passwordoops 3y ago

To be fair to the regulators, they have been busy lately: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-sues-block-novant-healths-acquisition-two-hospitals-community-health-systems https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/ftc-seeks-block-sanofis-acquisition-rare-disease-drug-threatens-sanofis-monopoly https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-action-leads-2-million-penalty-against-kubota-false-made-usa-claims https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/...

hilbert42 3y ago
Perhaps so. But they're too late the damage has been done. Unfortunately, they should have acted 30+ years ago. The need to regulate back then was just as obvious as it is now.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  What should they have done differently in the 90s, and what would the regulations have looked like?
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    Classed and regulated operating systems differently to applications. For example, the rules and regulations for building highways are very different to those for building and regulating motor vehicles even though one depends on the other. Microsoft would not have been able integrate Internet Explorer into Windows nor even the IP stack as these are actually applications. The whole world of security would have been different and more manageable not to mention much improved competition from other vendors.

cjblomqvist 3y ago

It's not the same situation as back then. 1. They don't have the same browser market share at all. 2. They don't have the same operating system market share they used to either (specifically, they lost the mobile space - which is how majority of people in the world access the internet). 3. It's easier to use another browser now on Windows then back when it was at its worst in 00s (where IE was more or less part of explorer.exe / core of Windows). Above can make a huge difference legally. Specifically your reference to the previous court case, which was built on point 1-2 above. Key word here being monopoly and how it's defined. Apple lived (until a few weeks ago, still do outside EU) in a world where it's OK to have it basically impossible to install another (real) browser on it's biggest OS, or install any app of your choosing without their blessing (and a 10-30% cut on revenue!) for that matter. It's complex for sure. It's unfortunate imo that Mozilla/FF got squashed by Chrome, and also made some questionable strategic decisions in the last 10-15 years. Performance, simplicity, stability and keeping up with me web tech being key USPs of Chrome, compared to competition. Note that absent from that list is monopolistic abuse (even though Google has it's fair share of that as well). In other words, you don't win the browser war by simply using monopolistic abuse as a strategy, you need to primarily win on value to your end users. That's at least how it's been in the past.

hilbert42 3y ago
"It's not the same situation as back then. 1. They don't have the same browser market share at all." That's essentially irrelevant because (a) Microsoft complied with the Court's ruling and allowed other browsers to be installed without hindrance, that's not the situation now; (b) you're painting a picture as if Microsoft was disadvantaged by the situation now and thus it's unfair to impose such restrictions again this time. To that I'd add that in case you haven't noticed Microsoft has just passed three trillion in value, it's only second to Apple in achieving this milestone. Thus the changed situation hasn't disadvantaged it one iota. I'd maintain that Microsoft has only managed this incredible feat because throughout its 48-year life it has consistently used unacceptable, bullyboy monopolistic practices at every opportunity. Essentially, Microsoft's growth has been at the expence of competitors who haven't had the size and finacial power to stand up to its market dominance no matter how good their products were. Such bad behavior has screwed both the market and product development for everyone—small and medium-sized developers, hardware manufacturers and end users. Just about the only entity that hasn't been screwed by its unacceptable business practices is Microsoft itself. The most significant reason for Microsoft's unfettered growth is that the regulators have been asleep at the wheel for decades—no doubt encouraged to 'sleep' by millions plowed into lobbying. On the matter of Mozilla, I'm certainly not an apologist for the company, in fact over the years I've been very critical of Mozilla including here on HN. Yes, the dominance of Chrome from that other monopolist Google has had a lot to do with Firefox's downfall, but that said Mozilla has been shooting itself in the foot for decades. Why and how is pretty obvious and well known so I won't debate that here.

ARandomerDude 3y ago

Get help, man. Don’t let the internet make you this angry.

lostmsu 3y ago

Perhaps the monopoly law should be changed to adapt to multiple scales. E.g. you shouldn't be able to use product 1 that has 100Y market in A to create any advantage for product 2 in market B if you know user uses competitor in B who's market in B is < 10Y (e.g. 10x less than market of product 1). For example if you have 2B market in OS you should not be allowed to use OS to advertise your own browser to user who uses another browser with under 200M users. That would also cover Apple exerting power over 50,000 installation apps. And by "know" here I mean that if you know user is not using your product yet, you must check the condition or not be allowed to use the advantage (e.g. either you should see Chrome ads in Chrome, or Google cant advertise Chrome to Edge users).

_heimdall 3y ago
How would a regulation like that actually be enforced? Whenever a regulation compares against what you "know" it is usually pretty easy to just not look, or claim that you numbers were inaccurate, or that team A knew but team B which implemented feature didn't (potentially even claiming that's a privacy feature by protecting user data). Even more difficult, the stats needed would be owned by the same party. I.e. Microsoft would be the one collecting and owning data of what apps a user already installed, and Google would be doing the same for any pertinent data related to Chrome use and advertising. Its effectively a black box to regulators, they would be asking MS for their own internal data that both sides already know must fit a very specifically defined legal requirement. This is exactly how VW got away with fudging the numbers on diesel regulations for so long.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  That's why the knowing caveat. E.g. either you HAVE to advertise to your own users (so if your browser is already the default, you still have to show the notification to suggest to change), or you are treated as if you know, and then you can't advertise based on the 10x rule. To put it differently you can't hide ad for Chrome users and then pretend you did not know others used FF.
  - _heimdall 3y ago