Hopefully this is won and followed by similar for all other tech monopolies: Amazon, apple, meta, Microsoft, etc.
Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media)
Microsoft: Apple (OS), Google, Amazon (enterprise compute)
Apple: Microsoft (O, services), Samsung (mobile), Google (mobile, services), Netflix (media)
So, it will take care of itself, and I think there are many other competition issues that need government intervention.
1) They have free data about what most users want (i.e. click on)
2) Websites fight for being indexed by Google, but crawlers other than Google basically have to fight to access websites
IMO Chrome needs to be split out too as does Android.
Is Microsoft abusing their market position to keep competitors out of the market?
Laughs in edge ignoring browser preferences screwing over firefox
laughs in constantly returning widgets, Microsoft reward currency on the start menu, forced telemetry.
Laughs in teams bundling.
Laughs in the coming super monopoly of cross domain AI finetuning in teams.
Lol, by the standards of the last century, they are worse than what did them in in the 90s
If there was a company that controlled 100% of a market, but was committing no "abuse", that's still a problem.
We want competition. If there is no competition, then evidently conditions that prevent competition exist.
Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Back in the 90s, Microsoft was found to harm other browsers.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
But I think if Standard had 64% in the beginning and there was a competitive market, they would not have been broken up.
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oi...
As to when the case started, it’s impossible to know what the minimum threshold was. It could just as easily been well below 64% as people where in monopoly busting push at the time.
Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power. It is written into US law that the company has a legal duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a distinction without a difference.
The legal duty to shareholders doesn't mean that companies need to violate the law. In reality, saying " we don't abuse our market position to avoid regulatory scrutiny" is acting in the interests of shareholders, and a lawsuit wouldn't go further. Otherwise you'd be saying that companies had a duty to break all laws in pursuit of shareholder value, which is obviously silly.
And yeah under us law you have to prove consumer harm or anticompetitive practice, not just having a significant market majority.
What do you think this looks like in practice? Because it makes logical sense to me that monopolistic companies would use their monopolistic power to come as close as they can with anti competitive behavior without attracting scrutiny which is why you break them up in the first place. And it's not theoretical, there are many examples not least of which is Microsoft.
It's not though!
The legal duty is to act in the best interests of shareholders. Avoiding the risk of regulatory scrutiny is in the interests of shareholders. The way a lawsuit like this would work is that you'd go to discovery and short of the CEO explicitly stating that they were tanking share prices (and not disclosing that at the time), the lawsuit would get thrown out.
> monopolistic power
What is monopolistic power that isn't anticompetitive? Either what you're saying here is "Companies would engage in anticompetitive behavior and avoid scrutiny" in which case that's a regulatory failing, or you're saying "companies would engage in legal practices I personally dislike, and not attract scrutiny as a result", which is totally fine.
> And it's not theoretical, there are many examples not least of which is Microsoft
I'm not sure what you're saying, Microsoft wasn't broken up.
I am saying this isn't theory. That this happens basically any time a company has monopolistic power. We cannot expect companies to behave altruistically (nor should we, the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit).
> "Companies would engage in anticompetitive behavior and avoid scrutiny" in which case that's a regulatory failing
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And the regulatory response is to break the company apart or provide a public service that meets the need of the public if the monopoly is natural.
The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value. Because that is the only interest of a shareholder. I am aware I'm repeating myself here but that necessarily means the company must behave in a way that they maximize their profit under the law as it currently stands regardless of morality/ethics. Given the US government has not done any monopoly control since I can remember, avoiding regulatory scrutiny is a farcical risk.
The original point we were discussing is that private monopolies by themselves can be okay but monopolistic manipulation should be punished. And I disagree with that point because monopolies (and any company) must maximize their profit. Nevermind the legal duty to their shareholders, companies must maximize profit.
And duty to shareholders would actually mean that management would not abuse their monopoly power because of the risk of breakup.
Their market has been shrinking due to the rise of tablets and smartphones (so a majority of the population doesn't need PCs at home beyond certain professionals, gamers and hobbyists)
They do have a large business market share, but that is also shrinking as many "modern" businesses diversify with Apple computers due to employees growing up with them.
Depending on stats, it has fallen from 90% to 75% in a decade and will most likely continue to fall. This is part of the business case for Microsoft to make their software work cross-platform in order to diversify.
Otherwise their position is a natural monopoly. Companies opted to all use Windows because there are certain economies of scale that occur when you all standardize on the same software, including, and this is the biggest one, your employees not needing to relearn whatever ridiculous snowflake UI scheme came up by each different linux distro. It's why Windows and macOS will continue to remain dominant in the PC space.
The same goes for Office 365. Sure there are certain elements of it that are a bit _too pushy. But companies buy into it because it's one standardized and integrated system. Going elsewhere has overhead of increased training costs for end users and even the IT admin side.
EDIT: OP eventually clarified in the thread that they're talking about piracy. So apparently the argument is that because Microsoft products can be pirated, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Make of that what you will.
And also as a small fish the higher OEM price is being subsidised by the Fortune 500 companies which buy millions of dollars worth of products from Dell etc.
Edit: The idea that OEMs only tack on the extra cost to big companies is demonstrably false. For one thing, margins per-item are always lower on bulk purchases, not higher—Fortune 500 do not pay list price on anything. For another, you can see the difference in cost on the Dell XPS 13 by switching between Linux and Windows:
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-13-plus-dev...
Computers that don't offer a Linux option just all come with that $149 surcharge baked in.
You get Windows for free from the combo of self-assemble + torrenting + Microsoft not pursuing individual users for piracy
> > Dell XPS 13
And that is what I said, if you don't assemble the thing yourself buy the cheapest option from an OEM and then you can get Microsoft products for free if you are a wise guy.
And Microsoft tolerates it.
And there is no inherent reason it has to be that way. Microsoft doesn't have any kind of a monopoly on app distribution for Windows, for example. POSIX applications aren't tied to any specific vendor's proprietary Unix. You don't have to run Windows on most PCs even if that's what it comes with, and the same has been true of many Macs, but not iPhones.
Taking a monopoly you have legitimately and leveraging it into control over some other market is called tying.
Walmart and Amazon are both huge but it seems just wrong to say a brick-and-mortar store as equivalent to an online market place. The direct competitors to Amazon are Ebay, Baidu, Etsy, Temu and others, all of which are much smaller in the US (but some are huge elsewhere). You say that Facebook is a Google competitor because it offers eyeballs and because people sometimes go there to get stuff and it uses it's info for ads providing.
The actual situation imo is that online enterprises compete via monopolistic competition [1]. No large high tech company wants to offer exactly the same thing as it's because at best neither will make a lot of money - instead, any company entering a crowded marketplace will come up with something guaranteeing them more engagement, higher profits and so-forth (thus something even worse from the consumer's view). See Meta's Threads.
Walmart is also an online market place. Walmart.com includes third party reseller products with many significant similarities to Amazon. They've got fulfilled by Walmart, free shipping, and if you join Walmart+ it includes Paramount+ video streaming (also free grocery delivery).
There's no need for companies supplying a product en masse to be anywhere near that large.
iMessage has always worked with any device that supports SMS.
Google, on the other hand, actively blocked Windows Phone from having access to Youtube. Even when Microsoft paid to write a Youtube app themselves, Google blocked it.
Google did the same thing and blocked Youtube on Amazon's Echo Show.
youtube has always worked in a web browser.
Meanwhile I'm laughing about how fast Apple would come down on Google if they made their own Android chat that tapped into iMessage and internet commentators tried to justify it by "even when Google paid to write an iMessage app themselves, Apple blocked it"
Apple doesn't have a monopoly position to abuse in when it comes to texting.
Google, on the other hand, does nave a monopoly position on internet video, and a history of using that monopoly as a weapon against competing platforms.
> app.)...In the absence of a strategy to become the primary messaging service for [the] bulk of cell phone users, I am concerned [that] iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-android...
It's not blocking at all, when you explicitly support interoperation.
The only example that can obviously be called "blocking" is when Google used it's internet video monopoly as a weapon against Microsoft's competing smart phone platform.
Refusing to allow anyone to produce a Youtube app for Windows Phone isn't even in the same zip code as Google not writing a Youtube app themselves.
That may be causing your confusing here. You weren't aware of the functionality difference that Apple prevents other platforms from using with their design choices.
I'd recommend that you research which functionality is prevented on other platforms, since you didn't seem to know about it.
That's not blocking.
A good example of blocking is not allowing any developers on a competing smart phone platform to write an app that allows users to access your monopoly internet video platform.
Apple is pretty clearly blocking Google (or any other Android app developer) from implementing this functionality and greatly benefits from it. Particularly relevant for the age demographic this thread originally referenced.
What functionality? Give some concrete examples.
Try again.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-android...
Sorry, but Google's proprietary closed source fork of RCS is not any kind of "standard".
> Google's version of RCS—the one promoted on the website with Google-exclusive features like optional encryption—is definitely proprietary, by the way. If this is supposed to be a standard, there's no way for a third-party to use Google's RCS APIs right now. Some messaging apps, like Beeper, have asked Google about integrating RCS and were told there's no public RCS API and no plans to build one.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/new-google-site-begs...
This is very amusing given that Google wants to charge people to have RCS that can interoperate with their proprietary closed source implementation of RCS.
> If you want to implement RCS, you'll need to run the messages through some kind of service, and who provides that server? It will probably be Google. Google bought Jibe, the leading RCS server provider, in 2015. Today it has a whole sales pitch about how Google Jibe can "help carriers quickly scale RCS services, iterate in short cycles, and benefit from improvements immediately." So the pitch for Apple to adopt RCS isn't just this public-good nonsense about making texts with Android users better; it's also about running Apple's messages through Google servers. Google profits in both server fees and data acquisition.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/new-google-site-begs...
We'll see how it works out for both companies.
We are talking about iMessage.
Were you not aware of the functionality differences, cross platform?
I can totally understand if you weren't aware of them, because you had only used one type of phone, for example.
It can be hard to know about things like this, depending on ones personal experience.
I just find Google to be an advertising company that happens to produce software.
"Now that we’ve established that Apple collects and uses your data to serve ads, does it sell your data too? Turns out the answer is No, Apple doesn’t sell your data to third-party advertisers. The Cupertino giant possesses the exclusive rights of showing you ads on the App Store and other apps."
And by the way? I'm an android fan. Though Apple is more secure in some ways, I would much rather have control over my device.
Anyone can monitor your location.
Anyone can read your messages.
Anyone can spoof your address.