> In Microsoft’s case, regulators incorrectly decided that “desktop” was the monopoly. Looking back, it was “developers” where Microsoft enjoyed a real edge. I

> In Microsoft’s case, regulators incorrectly decided that “desktop” was the monopoly. Looking back, it was “developers” where Microsoft enjoyed a real edge. I don't understand what this means. The desktop was a monopoly, by definition and on-paper. There might have been a developer advantage corollary to that, but if it wasn't expressed through their dominance of the desktop it didn't matter. That's why the bundling was such a critical part of the trial; Microsoft was taking their advantage and expressing it in unfair ways. Unfair abuse of de-facto powers is also the root of today's tech regulation, and it's the most common-sense place to start in an age rampant with digital abuse. The author doesn't seem to suggest any alternatives to what the FTC is doing, so I don't see how they can earnestly suggest that they rethink it. > With enough AI training, Meta and Google can evolve to become “advertising engines” of the future. Am I dreaming? This doesn't sound like real prose, it's just scarewords being strung together to make a point. What does any of this supposed to amount to?