6 ms·

Why isn't Microsoft on this list?

pkphilip 3y ago
Good point. I guess the world recognizes that MS isn't quite as dominant as it was before - aleast on the operating systems side with Apple and Linux gaining reasonable share
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Also Windows is comparably open to other environments. The Windows and Xbox stores exist, but you are not forced to use them or does MS take a cut on software sold. Only potential issue I see is bundling of Office 365 and Teams. And they already fixed that one. So they are the least worst player on market.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Can you install a game on an Xbox with no disc drive without using their store?
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      No... Same goes for Sony. And Nintendo just stopped running their OS on not their hardware... I hope EU gets around to fix those later...
      - threeseed 3y ago
        That would destroy the console industry as we know it. Consoles are sold at close to break even with money made back through game sales. If EU allowed third party stores and stripped their commissions it would trigger a mass consolidation where Sony, Nintendo etc would buy developers, game engine vendors etc en masse and force exclusivity. Indie developers in particular would have no way to compete. And consumers would be forced to buy multiple consoles.
        Qwertious 3y ago
        Mandating consoles be opened up would destroy the console industry as we know it, but that would be a good thing - the only reason consoles were a good thing in the first place was because they were specialist devices that drove hardware innovation that simply wasn't feasible otherwise. Nowadays consoles aren't specialist hardware; they're PCs that have been slightly modified. The value proposition for consoles have almost nothing to do with new hardware capabilities like the N64 or PS3 promised (PS3 promised; the PS3's launch flopped due to Sony's arrogance and failure to cater to devs, not due to lack of power in the hardware itself - as later PS3 games demonstrate). So suppose consoles were forced to open up - if Sony and Nintendo bought devs en masse, then 1) that sounds like an end-run and could easily open them up to a product-tying suit, 2) that would lose them tons of money, because now they're losing money on their hardware and their devs (because forcing exclusives loses more than half of your potential sales base), and 3) indies wouldn't give a shit, because Steam already exists and in fact could be one of those third-party stores that the EU specifically forced consoles to allow, in this hypothetical. This wouldn't catch the industry completely flatfooted either, because back in the Windows 8 era Microsoft managed to scare Valve enough that they started investing in Linux as a backstop. The Steam Machines were a flop, but they've since released the Steam Deck to fill the portable console niche, and they've kept working on SteamOS and Big Picture mode to fill the gaming HTPC niche. Also, you're claiming that Microsoft might buy Unreal Engine or Unity in order to force it to be Xbox-exclusive; that would bring the antitrust hammer down like nothing else. The only result of consequence in the 0.0002ns before the EU carpetbombs Redmond, would be a huge upsurge in suppport for Godot. Godot isn't ready for primetime just yet (especially in 3D) and games can't practically switch engine mid-development, but people are already on edge from Unity's recent "charge per download" (scandal? controversy? worrying incident? whatever you call it.) Also, there are entire markets where game consoles don't have all that much penetration. China, in particular, who had banned consoles entirely until 2015, and restricted them until at least 2018. Convincing the Chinese market to buy even one console, let alone multiple, is unrealistic and platform holders know it.
        FMecha 3y ago
        There are people out there - typically classed as "console warriors", who primarily having seen the Microsoft-Activision purchase - who genuinely believe console companies should buy major third-parties, to bolster their first party line-up, because first party titles typically meant console exclusivity. On other hand, I consider platform exclusives, including that coming as byproduct of being made by a first party dev, as well as exclusive sports/brand licenses[1] as anti-competitive. [1] See Electronic Arts holding the exclusive Porsche license for several years, or how they were basically monopolizing American/gridiron football market by having the exclusive NFL license. Also: (I originally replied this part only) >Convincing the Chinese market to buy even one console, let alone multiple, is unrealistic and platform holders know it. The greater Asian market is more of a mobile game continent, to be fair. Look at Japan with their "gacha" game subculture; on top of the standard stuff surrounding mobile games, there's also the parasocial aspect associated with them that makes them popular.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        The EU can't fix what isn't broken. They can break what's working, perhaps, but I doubt they'll do it as the results would be too obviously bad in this case. My real point is in asking: why are people not allowed to sell what they want, without massive fines coming their way (that don't come the way of others doing what they do)?
  - kristjansson 3y ago
    AFAIK, MSFT still takes 12% of PC game sales in the windows store, and 30% of sales in the xbox store.
    - arlcode 3y ago
      Which is fine because there is ample competition on Windows and MS does very little to hamper it (as far as the DMA is concerned). Apple would also be allowed to charge whatever they want in the app store if there were actual competition on the platform. Since there isn't they have to play by the rules.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      In store yes, on platform no. Like Steam makes what hundreds of millions with no cut to MS.
- epolanski 3y ago
  Because MS does not prevent me from anything like different stores or installing anything I want.
chucke1992 3y ago
Because Microsoft does not have consumer facing products where they have the ultimate control over.
- progbits 3y ago
  Here's the list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act#Sectors_concerned_(Core_Platforms_Services) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act#Sectors_... Windows and LinkedIn should be covered. Maybe there isn't anything that the commission wants to investigate there because they did a good enough job complying. But future can bring more probes.
  - PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
    Microsoft didn't really have much to change on Windows outside of restoring the ability to uninstall system apps in the EEA and turning things off, and making users aware of such ability. They don't control distribution of software on Windows (no one uses MS Store), it already has major stores owned by different companies such as Steam, Epic etc that have as much access to the OS that the MS Store does.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
diggan 3y ago
I think it's because while Microsoft tries their hardest to nag people about their products (like Edge ads forcible injected into Chrome somehow), they don't prevent alternatives like Apple, as an example.
- oaiey 3y ago
  Microsoft is a very open platform regards many of the aspects of the DMA. There is app sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative browsers, alternative payment methods, alternative hardware, license-free ports, and there are now more laptops than ever offered without windows. In the cloud, they have valid competition (Google, AWS) in both IaaS, PaaS and SaaS (Office). Microsoft got regulated since before Google was founded (to put in context).
supriyo-biswas 3y ago
The more uncharitable interpretation of this would be that Microsoft has enmeshed itself to such an extent such that the bundling of Office365+Entra+Azure+Teams isn’t worth the loss of these services to governments who may potentially want to launch an investigation.
- thiago_fm 3y ago
  Lots of governments in the EU uses Linux and non-Microsoft alternatives. I'm guessing the EU is focused on consumer, not B2B focused companies
  - filleokus 3y ago
    > Lots Citation needed as they say. Even if it's true that's it more than 0, my estimate would be far in excess of 90% (of governmental employees who do their work inside of the Microsoft ecosystem). But your other point about not focusing on B2B is probably more true. However recent stuff like the cloud egress fees (EU Data ACT) shows that they do care about B2B sometimes at least.
- kypro 3y ago
  Not suggesting this is the reasoning, but interestingly same is true of Amazon which powers a lot of gov infrastructure.
  - supriyo-biswas 3y ago
    For Amazon, they’ve been unable to enmesh themselves in the same way, and with the EU DATA act passed, I’d assume they’d make quick work of the egress fees which are the main barrier towards multi-cloud architectures.
- concinds 3y ago
  Not at all. The EU announced just days ago that they're investigating MS Entra+365 https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/eu_antitrust_microsoft_entra_id/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/eu_antitrust_microsof... They started an investigation on 365+Teams a year ago: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3991 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_... And Microsoft complied by unbundling Teams in the EEA: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-unbundle-teams-office-seeks-avert-eu-antitrust-fine-2023-08-31/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-unbundle-teams-... and late last year, the EU asked Teams rivals whether they still thought there was an issue: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/microsoft-rivals-asked-if-teams-offer-addresses-concerns-eu-document-2023-11-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/microsoft-rivals-asked-...
noirscape 3y ago
Mostly because Microsoft doesn't really gatekeep Windows and is actually compliant with the DMA; they were motioning to the same tricks as the other gatekeepers (main one is forced bundling), but the DMA caused them to retract on all of those changes. Right now, you can properly remove all Windows apps from W11, which was really the big one that they started doing with Windows 10 alongside the Microsoft account push in OOBE (dunno if that one is still required). They also supposedly made actually disabling the Windows telemetry much more feasible than it used to be.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  Not tryiing to be argumentative, rather I geenuinely have a serious question. But doesn't MS gatekeep xbox?
  - noirscape 3y ago
    They do, but Xbox isn't considered a large enough market to be considered a gatekeeper affected by the DMA. None of the major console makers are. The platform must have any of the following to be a DMA gatekeeper: * Market capitalization of at least €75 billion. * More than €7.5 billion turnover from EEA residents. * At least 45 million customers in EEA. * At least 4.5 million business customers in EEA. Once any of those criteria are met for 3 years, they qualify as a Gatekeeper. While the gaming market is massive, any individual console platform still sits pretty comfortably below those criteria. You can find the customer number by googling around a bit - Xbox only has around 3 million active customers if I'm not mistaken (counted by Xbox Live accounts that were active in the past year). A platform truly needs to be collosal to be considered a Gatekeeper. This law is specifically for the large platforms, not small fry.
    - InsomniacL 3y ago
      > Xbox only has around 3 million active customers This seems very low given: > As of 2022, Microsoft announced around 120 million monthly active users (MAUs).
slartibutfast 3y ago
They are, kinda. > The Commission has also adopted five retention orders addressed to Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, asking them to retain documents which might be used to assess their compliance with the DMA obligations, so as to preserve available evidence and ensure effective enforcement. So, they are not under active investigation at the moment, but they are being monitored. source https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1689 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4328 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_...
multimoon 3y ago
I’m not in support of the DMA and I’m not in favor of the US suit against Apple, and I too have been wondering how Microsoft - who I’d argue is the most anticompetitive of all, with the longest history of doing so - has escaped all of this lately. They really must be funding some important people’s pockets.
- spogbiper 3y ago
  Its simple: Microsoft doesn't do the things that the DMA says companies can't do. They may do other anti-consumer things, but they don't do these things.
- toast0 3y ago
  Microsoft has been through this before. EU windows has a browser choice screen and you can buy it without windows media player (I think for the same price or darn near as with). Microsoft is good at painting in or near the lines, from decades of practice. They probably also respond to new regulations without an excess of foot dragging. Also, they weren't able to turn their dominant position in desktops into anything in mobile.
- layer8 3y ago
  Maybe the EU Commission hasn’t received DMA-related complaints from other companies about Microsoft. The Commission seems to be careful to base investigations on competitor statements.
majani 3y ago
For browser bundling, Chrome has beaten Edge out handily, so there's no case there. For Office bundling, they charge separately for it, so there's no real case their either

Good point. I guess the world recognizes that MS isn't quite as dominant as it was before - aleast on the operating systems side with Apple and Linux gaining reasonable share

Ekaros 3y ago
Also Windows is comparably open to other environments. The Windows and Xbox stores exist, but you are not forced to use them or does MS take a cut on software sold. Only potential issue I see is bundling of Office 365 and Teams. And they already fixed that one. So they are the least worst player on market.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Can you install a game on an Xbox with no disc drive without using their store?
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    No... Same goes for Sony. And Nintendo just stopped running their OS on not their hardware... I hope EU gets around to fix those later...
    - threeseed 3y ago
      That would destroy the console industry as we know it. Consoles are sold at close to break even with money made back through game sales. If EU allowed third party stores and stripped their commissions it would trigger a mass consolidation where Sony, Nintendo etc would buy developers, game engine vendors etc en masse and force exclusivity. Indie developers in particular would have no way to compete. And consumers would be forced to buy multiple consoles.
      - Qwertious 3y ago
        Mandating consoles be opened up would destroy the console industry as we know it, but that would be a good thing - the only reason consoles were a good thing in the first place was because they were specialist devices that drove hardware innovation that simply wasn't feasible otherwise. Nowadays consoles aren't specialist hardware; they're PCs that have been slightly modified. The value proposition for consoles have almost nothing to do with new hardware capabilities like the N64 or PS3 promised (PS3 promised; the PS3's launch flopped due to Sony's arrogance and failure to cater to devs, not due to lack of power in the hardware itself - as later PS3 games demonstrate). So suppose consoles were forced to open up - if Sony and Nintendo bought devs en masse, then 1) that sounds like an end-run and could easily open them up to a product-tying suit, 2) that would lose them tons of money, because now they're losing money on their hardware and their devs (because forcing exclusives loses more than half of your potential sales base), and 3) indies wouldn't give a shit, because Steam already exists and in fact could be one of those third-party stores that the EU specifically forced consoles to allow, in this hypothetical. This wouldn't catch the industry completely flatfooted either, because back in the Windows 8 era Microsoft managed to scare Valve enough that they started investing in Linux as a backstop. The Steam Machines were a flop, but they've since released the Steam Deck to fill the portable console niche, and they've kept working on SteamOS and Big Picture mode to fill the gaming HTPC niche. Also, you're claiming that Microsoft might buy Unreal Engine or Unity in order to force it to be Xbox-exclusive; that would bring the antitrust hammer down like nothing else. The only result of consequence in the 0.0002ns before the EU carpetbombs Redmond, would be a huge upsurge in suppport for Godot. Godot isn't ready for primetime just yet (especially in 3D) and games can't practically switch engine mid-development, but people are already on edge from Unity's recent "charge per download" (scandal? controversy? worrying incident? whatever you call it.) Also, there are entire markets where game consoles don't have all that much penetration. China, in particular, who had banned consoles entirely until 2015, and restricted them until at least 2018. Convincing the Chinese market to buy even one console, let alone multiple, is unrealistic and platform holders know it.
        FMecha 3y ago
        There are people out there - typically classed as "console warriors", who primarily having seen the Microsoft-Activision purchase - who genuinely believe console companies should buy major third-parties, to bolster their first party line-up, because first party titles typically meant console exclusivity. On other hand, I consider platform exclusives, including that coming as byproduct of being made by a first party dev, as well as exclusive sports/brand licenses[1] as anti-competitive. [1] See Electronic Arts holding the exclusive Porsche license for several years, or how they were basically monopolizing American/gridiron football market by having the exclusive NFL license. Also: (I originally replied this part only) >Convincing the Chinese market to buy even one console, let alone multiple, is unrealistic and platform holders know it. The greater Asian market is more of a mobile game continent, to be fair. Look at Japan with their "gacha" game subculture; on top of the standard stuff surrounding mobile games, there's also the parasocial aspect associated with them that makes them popular.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      The EU can't fix what isn't broken. They can break what's working, perhaps, but I doubt they'll do it as the results would be too obviously bad in this case. My real point is in asking: why are people not allowed to sell what they want, without massive fines coming their way (that don't come the way of others doing what they do)?
- kristjansson 3y ago
  AFAIK, MSFT still takes 12% of PC game sales in the windows store, and 30% of sales in the xbox store.
  - arlcode 3y ago
    Which is fine because there is ample competition on Windows and MS does very little to hamper it (as far as the DMA is concerned). Apple would also be allowed to charge whatever they want in the app store if there were actual competition on the platform. Since there isn't they have to play by the rules.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    In store yes, on platform no. Like Steam makes what hundreds of millions with no cut to MS.
epolanski 3y ago
Because MS does not prevent me from anything like different stores or installing anything I want.

chucke1992 3y ago

Because Microsoft does not have consumer facing products where they have the ultimate control over.

progbits 3y ago
Here's the list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act#Sectors_concerned_(Core_Platforms_Services) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act#Sectors_... Windows and LinkedIn should be covered. Maybe there isn't anything that the commission wants to investigate there because they did a good enough job complying. But future can bring more probes.
- PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
  Microsoft didn't really have much to change on Windows outside of restoring the ability to uninstall system apps in the EEA and turning things off, and making users aware of such ability. They don't control distribution of software on Windows (no one uses MS Store), it already has major stores owned by different companies such as Steam, Epic etc that have as much access to the OS that the MS Store does.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

diggan 3y ago

I think it's because while Microsoft tries their hardest to nag people about their products (like Edge ads forcible injected into Chrome somehow), they don't prevent alternatives like Apple, as an example.

oaiey 3y ago
Microsoft is a very open platform regards many of the aspects of the DMA. There is app sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative browsers, alternative payment methods, alternative hardware, license-free ports, and there are now more laptops than ever offered without windows. In the cloud, they have valid competition (Google, AWS) in both IaaS, PaaS and SaaS (Office). Microsoft got regulated since before Google was founded (to put in context).

supriyo-biswas 3y ago

The more uncharitable interpretation of this would be that Microsoft has enmeshed itself to such an extent such that the bundling of Office365+Entra+Azure+Teams isn’t worth the loss of these services to governments who may potentially want to launch an investigation.

thiago_fm 3y ago
Lots of governments in the EU uses Linux and non-Microsoft alternatives. I'm guessing the EU is focused on consumer, not B2B focused companies
- filleokus 3y ago
  > Lots Citation needed as they say. Even if it's true that's it more than 0, my estimate would be far in excess of 90% (of governmental employees who do their work inside of the Microsoft ecosystem). But your other point about not focusing on B2B is probably more true. However recent stuff like the cloud egress fees (EU Data ACT) shows that they do care about B2B sometimes at least.
kypro 3y ago
Not suggesting this is the reasoning, but interestingly same is true of Amazon which powers a lot of gov infrastructure.
- supriyo-biswas 3y ago
  For Amazon, they’ve been unable to enmesh themselves in the same way, and with the EU DATA act passed, I’d assume they’d make quick work of the egress fees which are the main barrier towards multi-cloud architectures.
concinds 3y ago
Not at all. The EU announced just days ago that they're investigating MS Entra+365 https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/eu_antitrust_microsoft_entra_id/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/eu_antitrust_microsof... They started an investigation on 365+Teams a year ago: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3991 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_... And Microsoft complied by unbundling Teams in the EEA: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-unbundle-teams-office-seeks-avert-eu-antitrust-fine-2023-08-31/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-unbundle-teams-... and late last year, the EU asked Teams rivals whether they still thought there was an issue: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/microsoft-rivals-asked-if-teams-offer-addresses-concerns-eu-document-2023-11-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/microsoft-rivals-asked-...

noirscape 3y ago

Mostly because Microsoft doesn't really gatekeep Windows and is actually compliant with the DMA; they were motioning to the same tricks as the other gatekeepers (main one is forced bundling), but the DMA caused them to retract on all of those changes. Right now, you can properly remove all Windows apps from W11, which was really the big one that they started doing with Windows 10 alongside the Microsoft account push in OOBE (dunno if that one is still required). They also supposedly made actually disabling the Windows telemetry much more feasible than it used to be.

bilbo0s 3y ago
Not tryiing to be argumentative, rather I geenuinely have a serious question. But doesn't MS gatekeep xbox?
- noirscape 3y ago
  They do, but Xbox isn't considered a large enough market to be considered a gatekeeper affected by the DMA. None of the major console makers are. The platform must have any of the following to be a DMA gatekeeper: * Market capitalization of at least €75 billion. * More than €7.5 billion turnover from EEA residents. * At least 45 million customers in EEA. * At least 4.5 million business customers in EEA. Once any of those criteria are met for 3 years, they qualify as a Gatekeeper. While the gaming market is massive, any individual console platform still sits pretty comfortably below those criteria. You can find the customer number by googling around a bit - Xbox only has around 3 million active customers if I'm not mistaken (counted by Xbox Live accounts that were active in the past year). A platform truly needs to be collosal to be considered a Gatekeeper. This law is specifically for the large platforms, not small fry.
  - InsomniacL 3y ago
    > Xbox only has around 3 million active customers This seems very low given: > As of 2022, Microsoft announced around 120 million monthly active users (MAUs).

slartibutfast 3y ago

They are, kinda. > The Commission has also adopted five retention orders addressed to Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, asking them to retain documents which might be used to assess their compliance with the DMA obligations, so as to preserve available evidence and ensure effective enforcement. So, they are not under active investigation at the moment, but they are being monitored. source https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1689 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4328 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_...

multimoon 3y ago

I’m not in support of the DMA and I’m not in favor of the US suit against Apple, and I too have been wondering how Microsoft - who I’d argue is the most anticompetitive of all, with the longest history of doing so - has escaped all of this lately. They really must be funding some important people’s pockets.

spogbiper 3y ago
Its simple: Microsoft doesn't do the things that the DMA says companies can't do. They may do other anti-consumer things, but they don't do these things.
toast0 3y ago
Microsoft has been through this before. EU windows has a browser choice screen and you can buy it without windows media player (I think for the same price or darn near as with). Microsoft is good at painting in or near the lines, from decades of practice. They probably also respond to new regulations without an excess of foot dragging. Also, they weren't able to turn their dominant position in desktops into anything in mobile.
layer8 3y ago
Maybe the EU Commission hasn’t received DMA-related complaints from other companies about Microsoft. The Commission seems to be careful to base investigations on competitor statements.

majani 3y ago

For browser bundling, Chrome has beaten Edge out handily, so there's no case there. For Office bundling, they charge separately for it, so there's no real case their either