4 ms·
A friend told me about how his workplace have switched from Zoom to Teams for video calls because they use Office and Teams is now bundled with Office so they d
by rlpb 2y ago
A friend told me about how his workplace have switched from Zoom to Teams for video calls because they use Office and Teams is now bundled with Office so they don't have to pay extra for Zoom.
> This sure seems to say it's illegal to bundle any products together if a competitor for one of the products complains about it.
It's not bundling itself that's the issue. The use of one market to encroach on another is what's considered unfair competition. The fact that a competitor exists that just does one part of it is what makes the case that the two markets are separate.
- _heimdall 2y agoOnce car manufacturers started including bluetooth support they were incroaching on the aftermarket headunit market in a similar way. Was that actually illegal?
- rlpb 2y agoThis is far from a novel question. There is extensive statute and case law in this area across many jurisdictions. You could start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
- _heimdall 2y agoSure, I'm well aware of antitrust laws, the Sherman Act, etc. If you want to look at it from that angle, what are the consumer concerns being violates by Teams being bundled and potentially replacing Zoom that was previously used? Teams isn't forced on Office users and Zoom isn't prevented, consumers still can choose.
- rlpb 2y agoAgain, the answer to your question is well established. Linked from the page I linked you previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) """ The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components. One effect of tying can be that low quality products achieve a higher market share than would otherwise be the case. """ > ...Zoom isn't prevented, consumers still can choose. Only until Zoom fails because consumers who would have otherwise used Zoom were forced to pay for Teams instead because the price for Teams was bundled into the price for Office. At least, that's the argument. To be clear, I'm not myself arguing either way. But the reason for the case is clear and it is disingenuous to pretend that it doesn't exist.
- rdtsc 2y agoUntil everyone ends up getting a free Teams add-on, Zoom is driven out of business, and then Teams becomes a $19.99 a month per user service. If a new competitor appears, the price drops again until they are driven away, then goes back up. So initially it might be great for consumers because there is competition and there are choices. But it’s heading in the direction where consumers will be harmed.
- Apocryphon 2y agoIn the realm of enterprise software, users aren't the "consumer" anyway. It's whatever executive has buying power to mandate what software is used by the org.
- wannacboatmovie 2y agoSome gas stations give you a free car wash with a fill-up (using their market to encroach on another). That doesn't mean the standalone car wash down the street has a case. This isn't about consumer protection. This is about petty people still trying to "get" Microsoft after 30 years, it's all so tiresome.