2 ms·
Yeah, I’m all for monopoly busting, but I don’t understand what kind of criteria are in use here. I’ve yet to see a definition that would allow me to apply rule
by Modified3019 2y ago
Yeah, I’m all for monopoly busting, but I don’t understand what kind of criteria are in use here. I’ve yet to see a definition that would allow me to apply rules in a coherent way.
My own company uses office 365, and of all the included programs, I basically only use excel, outlook, and teams. I haven’t even opened word in years, all documents are shared as PDFs. As such, word has no more inherent need for “bundling” than teams.
It just seems arbitrary. I’d be more comfortable just stating that companies over a certain size can’t bundle at all.
- OJFord 2y agoThere do exist companies trying to compete on chat and complaining about it, I'd guess. (Whereas Gmail is doing fine and Thunderbird is free.)
- dantheman 2y agoThat is the essence of anti-trust, it's nonsense. It's merely losers complaining.
- necovek 2y agoIt's not that simple. Imagine you build the next great thing, you open up a new product line for everyone. Your business starts doing well, but then Microsoft or Apple come along, throw money at it and include it in their bundles (Office or OS) by default. Suddenly, you are the loser, while they are selling below investment cost to simply push you out of the market. So that's the issue. Similarly, it should probably be made illegal for VC-backed startups to undercut incumbents just to shut them down: that's very similar to me.