• Bernie EcclestonedOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Maybe you weren’t born when this happened, so it’s understandable that you don’t know

          The magazine Business & Economic Research argued that, contrary to Friedman’s concerns, the settlement actually had little effect on Microsoft’s behavior. The fines, restrictions, and monitoring imposed were not enough to prevent it from “abusing its monopolistic power and too little to prevent it from dominating the software and operating system industry.” For that reason, Microsoft remained dominant and monopolistic after the trial, and it continued to stifle competitors and innovative technology.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

          If a market regulator is slowing these cunts down, they’re doing their job.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That was over 20 years ago….

            What do Microsoft have a monopoly on in 2023?

            Regulators don’t exist just to “slow companies down”. They’re there to ensure fairness in the market, and this deal doesn’t make the cloud market unfair in any way. If you think it does, explain how please?

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not a monopoly.

                I know what the CMA did. I’m not saying it’s complicated? I’m saying that they’re overstepping their bounds here.

                • Bernie EcclestonedOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh fuck off. In the UK a firm is said to have monopoly power if it has more than 25% of the market share.

                  They acted to ensure there was more competition for Activision games, if you don’t understand that you’re either a retard or a troll.

                  Either way, jog on.

                  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So Sony, nintendo, and Microsoft all have a monopoly on video games in the UK? 😂. They all have over 25% market share.

                    You’re misunderstanding the description that you read. In the UK if a merger would result in over 25% market share it automatically needs approval by the CMA. That doesn’t mean 25% means it’s a monopoly. If it did that would mean that any merger that gave more than 25% would be flat out denied. Microsoft already has over 25% market share, that’s why it’s being investigated.

                    more competition for Activision games

                    What on earth do you even mean by this? Other consoles and streaming services aren’t owed Activision games.

                    Name call more mate, really making yourself look intelligent.