By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EpicRandy on 01 May 2023
Edit Thread
LurkerJ said:
Chazore said:

You do realise the PC space means all software providers, publishers, studios making apps, game publishers, etc.


You do realise that MS has money, but they cannot literally buy everyone and everything that is being used within PC's universe. 

They *could* put a lockdown on everything and just be an outward brute to everyone, but we all know how that worked out when they tried their EEE strat, so them going from a subtle strat to an outlandish one would get shut down so much faster.

PC in general is so much bigger than you think you know, bigger than anyone here knows, and I'm not on about the gaming sector, I'm on about everything else (yes literally everything else within it's sphere). MS cannot afford to buyout or control absolutely everything on PC, it's both impossible and entirely impractical (Which is why they have their OS, the cloud and some services, instead of hw, and literally everything else anyone else has made for and on PC, past present and future, because that's just not possible.

I'm legit trying to mull over this ability to somehow own/dominate an open platform, and it sounds so bonkers, like not a "whoa man, far out", I mean as in "wow, not possible, why we we even trying to think of this?".

Despite what others will tell you, Mac, Windows and Linux, as well as Amiga, are all OS's that are used for PC's, so regardless of Windows existing, MS would still somehow have to dominate/own Mac OS and Linux, as in prevent any and all growth, because time changes everything, things grow, and dominance can certainly wane, so for them to dominate all of PC, they would have to eliminate or own those following OS's, or risk them growing and making their "dominance" a non factor or "whatever".

I don't understand what you're to say here, really. Just literally hours ago the EC ordered Microsoft to uncouple Teams from Office because Slack, the product MS copied, lost all of its lead to Teams after MS flexed its muscle and leveraged its dominant position to promote their copycat product. MS is a convicted monopolist and a repeat offender, they will abuse whatever power they're handed, whether they're successful at this or not is a different matter; one the CMA isn't keen on finding out. 

The funny thing is that MS didn't protest the EC decision at all and complied immediately, because as a repeat offender, they know better than anyone how they challenged similar decisions in the past and lost. 

Do you have a source for this? all I can find is that MS agreed with regulators before the case even went to court to remove the mandatory installation of teams with their office suits.

Also, Teams is a replacement for Skype for Business which was rebranded from Microsoft Lync which itself was a rebranded "Office Communicator" which existed since 2007 a whole 6 years before the introduction of Slack so the copy claim is far from painting justice to reality.

In the end, Teams is an office software that was bundled in their office software suite which is kind of the point with all their office software. By the same token, Google could file suit against MS cause their Google Docs and Spreadsheet are impacted by the inclusion of Word and Excel in the same suit.

Anyway the funny thing about your funny thing is it place MS in a damn if you do damn if you don't scenario, MS made the least "monopolistic" resolution possible on the issue as going to court would only further entrench this view.