I doubt it. MS has to worry about windows' antitrust issues so merging windows and xb1 too tightly might restrict what they can do on the console gaming side.
Could antitrust rulings prevent MS integrating XB too closely into Windows? *spawn
- Thread starter dobwal
- Start date
I doubt it. MS has to worry about windows' antitrust issues so merging windows and xb1 too tightly might restrict what they can do on the console gaming side.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't see anti-trust issues if Xbox functionality is included in future Windows OSs as a software feature built upon the user's PC hardware - this is no real difference to Direct3D (or other parts of DirectX) only being on Windows.
Microsoft's anti-trust woes were principally because of concerted software engineering to make it difficult for others to compete on their platform so as long as they're not locking out, or disadvantaging, Steam and other game services I can't see how this is anti-competetive.
I don't see it as being much different from Apple. OS and hardware belongs to MS. People create apps and games for said hardware.
I'm thinking the bundling of the Windows media player, IE and instant messenger which have been used to bring suit against MS by a couple of countries.
Difference being Apple's OSes aren't construed as monopolies in the spaces they operate in. Windows is considered a monopoly in the PC space and MS has gotten in trouble over the most trivial of things.
I think MS is sensitive to such issues.
Last edited by a moderator:
That stuff happened in the 90s, as far as I can remember. Stuff is different now. Microsoft still puts IE and Media player in Windows installs, just like Apple puts iTunes and Safari in OSX, iOS, and Google puts Chrome and whatever their media player is in Android. If there are any countries that still force them to unbundle, then fuck them. They can let the rest of the world have cool stuff while those other countries can deal with installing the software separately.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
IE was not just about bundling but because IE used to be, inextricably, tightly integrated into the core OS giving Microsoft's browser an advantage over the competition. WMP was more about Microsoft using it's inclusion to push their commercial non-propriety codecs - both were predicated on Windows (and the applications for Windows) being the OS with the largest market share (having a monopoly).
But Microsoft don't, nor have ever, had a monopoly in games nor console markets so allowing a future version of Windows to play Xbox games would not fall under conventional anti-competetive legislation. They'd have to do something pretty egregious like including Xbox and Xbox Live into Windows and arbitrarily locking out Steam and competing ecosystems.
Perhaps but this is because it was bundled with the OS, which can be placed on any PC, hence anticompetitive. What I'm suggesting is that consumers are willingly buying a closed box environment. That is very different, than just installing Xbox onto every PC there is. I'm talking about specific hardware that has merged both Xbox and PC together, and not necessarily available to all PCs. So consumers are buying into the model of a mobile gaming console that can operates complex apps. The government cannot penalize consumers for desiring a closed box experience, that just doesn't make any sense.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Nope. I'm in the UK and installed Windows 7 to an iMac last summer and one of the first windows that pops up once most of the core OS is installed is a window asking which browser you'd like to install. Microsoft fucked up on one of their service packs in 2013 and got fined again for not following through on their settlement from the stone age.
The EU basically use Microsoft as their poster whipping boy as an example to any other company who think that can engage in anticompetitive behaviour. Look at the freedom of choice enjoyed by the EU vs the US in mobile phones, telephone services and ISPs. We have choice, Americans usually have no choice. The FCC and FTC should be looking out for Americans but lobbyists.
Sorry OT - no, Microsoft are still under the thumb for those things that happened decades back.
The tight intergration was removed but MS has been dealing with the browser bundling even with windows 8. The EU found that the simple inclusion of IE with Windows allowed MS to create a dominant position in the browser market, which is why MS included BrowserChoice.eu feature. It got in trouble again after windows service pack 1 removed the feature and was hit with a 561 million euro fine.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yeah, they separate the core OS and IE quite quickly (after claiming it was impossible - go figure!). I can't remember the details but I believe the original settlement between the EU and Microsoft - which Microsoft obviously agreed too - had a duration that would be extended should Microsoft fail to meet the terms of the settlement at any point of the duration which it's slipped on a few times so is still in force.
Theoretically if they keep fucking up, they could be bound to the agreement forever. I'm sure people can been canned for those mistakes.
I don't understand this. Why isn't Google and Apple held to account for their exclusivity of browsers on their devices? I assumed, going by Google and Apple, that MS including a store front etc. on their OS would be perfectly acceptable. I can't see how disallowing that isn't a complete double-standard given the current market. It was different when MS were a monopoly (although I still had no beef with them including a browser as standard).
iOS is 100% monopoly on iPhone and iPad! And Google is a 100% monopoly on Android devices.
Okay, a bit of Google suggests mobile is only worth 5% of browser use.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Simple. Neither Apple and Google have a monopoly (their products/services comprising the great part of any given market) and anti-competitive legislation, at least in most countries, only kicks in when a product or service, dominates the larger market share.
Neither iOS or Android have a monopoly in mobile operating systems (nobody has - yet) but Google do on search which is why they are subject to scrutiny that Microsoft aren't with Bing. Microsoft Windows still has monopoly in desktop OS terms.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Mobile operating systems are a market. iOS and Android are part of that market. The distinction is if Apple stop making iOS, the mobile operating system market does not collapse because consumers have alternative choices. If you don't like iOS now, don't buy it. Apple has no monopoly that undermines or restricts the success of their competitors.
This is the basic definition of a free market.
I agree its a double standard. And its obvious that MS has to structure its OS and affiliated software and services differently than either Apple or Google. I bought a surface 3 pro thinking that the windows store would be analogous to app store or google play. But its more of a storefront/distribution service for Windows RT than it is for Windows PC.
Shutting out device manufacturers from Google ecosystem if they manufacture devices with forked versions of Android or disallowing those manufacturers from incorporating third party alternatives for core services are both examples of things Microsoft could not get away with Windows but Google readily does.
Have a monopoly? Better worry about anything that may inhibit competition in the eyes of the regulators.
Have a duopoly? Then crush competition as much as you like as long as its not the other major competitor.
Apple or Google not having a monopoly in the space they operate in, does not stop them from wielding large amounts of influence that eliminate or inhibit competition.
But back on topic, given MS past history and troubles, I don't think MS has any plans to attempt the merging of xbox gaming and pc gaming. I can see windows on the Xbox. I can see some xbox services and software being compatible with general windows. But MS won't push the melding of the two platforms.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The US legislation looks incredibly complicated (lots of separate Acts) and the EU legislation is very open to interpretation. I've not found any hard and fast definition about what constitutes a monopoly but the EU legislation has an exemption for any market participant with less than 10% market share (insignificant) and both have a legal concept of a "dominant" market player which is different from a monopoly. I can't see a specific 60/70/80/90% definition for where dominant market players need to be careful.
The legislation seems to be based on the merits of individual cases made to the appropriate court so it could be that Google, with Android, could be held to account under anti-competitive legislation were a strong case made, although I struggle to see where. Google develop Android at their own expensive, it's "open" (ish) software that comes with strings attached but then most software some with licences restricting use in commercial markets. It's not like Google are preventing competition, they actively support competing OSs like iOS. Mobile phone manufacturers are free to use Google's work, fork it, but if they want to tap into bits of Google's wider ecosystem, there are things they can't do. It's not Google's job to fund competing products. And manufacturers have alternatives like Windows Phone.
Not disagreeing with you, but just tapping your know-how, how is that different to PC manufacturers having the option of using Linux instead of Windows? Windows Mobile is as niche as Linux and not really a valid option in the eyes of many consumers, so aren't manufacturers basically beholden to Google and Android for smartphones?
Android has 85% of market share. I think that's of handsets sold last quarter or sommat. Google are mahoosive in this space. I don't see why they aren't held to the same sorts of requirements as MS. In the 90s, you could run Windows, Mac, or Linux, with MS having a massive market share. Nowadays you run Android, iOS or Windows Mobile, with Android having a massive share. Maybe people overlook it while Apple thrives? Maybe it's based on how much cash the competition makes? Apple makes lots, so Google isn't a monopoly?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I genuinely don't know. I skimmed through a fair few of the pieces of relevant legislation but these seem light on specific circumstances which I why I speculate that the merit of each case would be considered by the prevailing court or body.
In the case of Microsoft, the charge was Windows had a monopoly on the desktop and that OS monopoly allowed them to marginalise the competition. It seems it was consumers and competitors who were deemed disadvantaged in those cases. Although LINUX (and MacOS) were alternatives, perhaps they weren't perceived as credible alternatives?
Well Microsoft are being held to the standards of their settlement with the EU, so there is some legal contract/commitment in place with EU's regulation body which they are failing to follow. Google's search business gets a lot of attention in the EU but thus far Android does not - but I think this is primarily because nobody is claiming Android is anti-competitive.
The legislation seems predicated on market share, influence, intent and abusive acts rather than profits. Apple control their own ecosystem, there are alternatives for those who don't like the Apple way. Google control their end-to-end ecosystem and for those who want to fork and do their own thing, you can do that no problems although Google reserve the right of access to services they operate at their cost to non-Android OS's unless otherwise licenses. Microsoft is similar to apple but it open for licensing.
The legislation isn't about people stopping doing any of these things, it's designed to prevent a dominant player preventing free competition in any number of areas. I can't see any lack of competition in the mobile OS market and certainly Microsoft (and Apple) could get away with far more restrictive practices than Google because they have smaller markets and therefore less influence over the entire market.
As I understand it!
I don't think this really matters anymore. Microsoft would easily argue, what is the difference between an iPad an PC is both can do very similar tasks. One just happens to come with a keyboard, the other does not. And there are plenty of Android tablets for users to pick from as well. The distinction between mobile and desktop when referring to computing is pretty arbitrary.
Now, if you want to see what happens when undue influence is applied, see Google and how they treat search to *ahem* influence its competitors to their detriment. *That* is what grabs the EUs attention these days, not Microsoft and poor, poor Windows.
Not to mention, Microsoft integrated music and video stores directly into Windows 8 and there was nary a peep from the EU. Why would gaming be any different?
Now, if you want to see what happens when undue influence is applied, see Google and how they treat search to *ahem* influence its competitors to their detriment. *That* is what grabs the EUs attention these days, not Microsoft and poor, poor Windows.
Not to mention, Microsoft integrated music and video stores directly into Windows 8 and there was nary a peep from the EU. Why would gaming be any different?