Tech monopolies are definitely a problem, but I'm not sure this article really accomplishes its goal of proving that Microsoft needs broken up. They focus on MS buying up other companies, but they...
Tech monopolies are definitely a problem, but I'm not sure this article really accomplishes its goal of proving that Microsoft needs broken up.
They focus on MS buying up other companies, but they aren't buying competitors, just new/different products rather than develop their own (which could be a problem in itself - when does one company have too much power over a space without technically being a monopoly? I think we specifically need to look at things like the medical industry first, though.)
There are some good points regarding anti-competitive behavior with increased costs if you don't use Azure, but giving discounts for bundling / high value customers is a pretty standard tactic across all industries.
Regarding the recent gaming acquisitions - I've always thought there was no big concern unless they started buying up game engine developers like Epic, EA, or Unity. Buying game developers doesn't stop or add difficulty to new game developers from creating their games. The game market is still extremely open and competitive. More than ever, actually, with the accessibility of off-the-shelf engines and assets
The only place where Microsoft could be said to have a monopoly is in the OS industry. I'm no expert, so I can't say for certain, but I don't know of any anti-competitive behavior they use to keep market dominance. I'm interested if anybody knows more about this, though.
I thought the focus was equally on MS's dominance of the business software field, in part achieved by bundling things (see e.g. Slack's problems now that Teams is bundled together with Office and...
They focus on MS buying up other companies... The only place where Microsoft could be said to have a monopoly is in the OS industry
I thought the focus was equally on MS's dominance of the business software field, in part achieved by bundling things (see e.g. Slack's problems now that Teams is bundled together with Office and Outlook). I think this cross-product integration (e.g. offering substantial discounts for using everything from Microsoft) is definitely at least veering towards monopoly behaviour.
Tech monopolies are definitely a problem, but I'm not sure this article really accomplishes its goal of proving that Microsoft needs broken up.
They focus on MS buying up other companies, but they aren't buying competitors, just new/different products rather than develop their own (which could be a problem in itself - when does one company have too much power over a space without technically being a monopoly? I think we specifically need to look at things like the medical industry first, though.)
There are some good points regarding anti-competitive behavior with increased costs if you don't use Azure, but giving discounts for bundling / high value customers is a pretty standard tactic across all industries.
Regarding the recent gaming acquisitions - I've always thought there was no big concern unless they started buying up game engine developers like Epic, EA, or Unity. Buying game developers doesn't stop or add difficulty to new game developers from creating their games. The game market is still extremely open and competitive. More than ever, actually, with the accessibility of off-the-shelf engines and assets
The only place where Microsoft could be said to have a monopoly is in the OS industry. I'm no expert, so I can't say for certain, but I don't know of any anti-competitive behavior they use to keep market dominance. I'm interested if anybody knows more about this, though.
I thought the focus was equally on MS's dominance of the business software field, in part achieved by bundling things (see e.g. Slack's problems now that Teams is bundled together with Office and Outlook). I think this cross-product integration (e.g. offering substantial discounts for using everything from Microsoft) is definitely at least veering towards monopoly behaviour.