| EpicRandy said: |
I may have found a better way to verbalize what I described earlier
There is no business model using cloud streaming that MS remedies do not cover or that the CMA's own conclusion found no SLC.
all business models using cloud streaming can be summed up in 2 categories that are true today, and cover any potential existing or future variation in business models
- Monetizing streaming services directly
this is covered by MS remedies and can benefit from them, The CMA agree to this in their conclusion. - Not monetizing cloud streaming services directly
The actual market is either a digital store or a subscription service to a content library. Both of those have not been of concern to the CMA and are not subject to an SLC or remedies.
What about Boosteroid
they are purely number #1 and 100% covered by remedies
What about Luna
they are in both #1 and #2, they can benefit from MS remedies by allowing BYOG on their streaming platform
What about stadia (if they were not dead)
they are essentially #2 (stadia pro(subscription base content library + digital store) / stadia basic( digital / store))
- But some features of the stadia were locked behind the PRO version
that means they also dip their toe in #1 as part of their cloud streaming offering is also monetized directly so they can benefits from MS remedies by allowing BYOG with no added cost. - But what about the free tier, that one could never propose ABK content
actually, they could, MS remedies do not require an actor to a minimum monthly fee fo their cloud service sub. This mea they could benefits from those even on a free tier, they would just have no way of monetizing said content other than service and store exposue. (which could be enough to justify adding this to a free tier for a limited time)
What about GeForce now
they are purely in #1 so they benefit directly from remedies.
What about PS Now
they are in both #1 and #2, they can benefit from MS remedies by allowing BYOG to their streaming platform.
- But PS would refuse if they don't monetize the game directly
yes but
A) The CMA found no SLC for not being able to sell ABK content in a digitaly store or through subcription.
B) For Sony in particular, they would actually be covered to do so by other contractual terms proposed by MS.
C) MS cannot be at fault for the business decision of another entity.
Every existing actor using cloud game streaming falls into either category 1(cloud as a market) or category 2 (cloud as a distribution medium) or both and the same is true for every actor that could be and the same is true no matter how fancy or unorthodox their monetization scheme is.
Given this, the only possible interpretation of the CMA conclusion is:
It's a paradox, the CMA did block the merger for concerns over a cloud market that isn't a cloud market and by doing so prevented the benefits of remedies to the actual true cloud market.
But the EU found also concern over the same market.
This is a wrong assessment, the EU found concern over #1 as did the CMA and both actually agree MS remedies resolve all issues in this market.
Then why has the CMA reached a different conclusion
For some reason, they tried to cover variations in the cloud market without realizing that any variations that do not monetize cloud streaming services directly are not actually in the cloud market.
A better example to clear things up
Let's take the video game console market (abbr. console market) and the video game for console market (abbr. game market).
Those are 2 different markets. One market cater to selling console the other to selling games on console. An actor can do one or the other and can do both but they are still different markets.
One can impact the other but it would be irrational to argue during a merger that an SLC in the console market is found because actors in the game market might use various console monetization schemes as this would not describe a console market SLC but game market SLC.
But that's exactly what the CMA has been doing here with the cloud market SLC.
