Could antitrust rulings prevent MS integrating XB too closely into Windows? *spawn

dagamer said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you have a monopoly, the argument "if you don't like it, leave" doesn't fly. Not everybody can afford to move to a new platform and ecosystem and even if you can installed an alternative OS, many will have a sunk investment in software.

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?
Click to expand...

Introducing a store doesn't affect choice. Nor is the store affecting existing markets. So there's no issue. I think adding Xbox compatibility to a future version of Windows would be the same as long as Microsoft continue to offer Xbox hardware. If not, that's a bit different.
 
Personally I think the lay of the land is sufficiently different than when the EU had their initial cases.

However, if you follow the EU ruling regarding IE the concern was with user "choice", i.e. having IE installed by default with the OS install, thus many users wouldn't be bothered to look for another. With this ruling MS just had to direct EU users to a website that featured a list of potential browser choices, of which IE was one. Note, this obligation expired last month (with no indication that the EU are going to look at it again) and new users will no longer be presented with the option, indicating that IE is and was still installed by default and the browser option site just looked to install another and have that as default.

For an analogous situation elsewhere, the precedents the EU have set wouldn't prevent MS from integrating functionality into their OS, but, should there be a request from a competitor to look at it, might request provision for alternatives to be readily displayed.

Applied to gaming the biggest competitor would be Steam (lesser so, Origin and Ubi's thing) and Valve kinda already did complain when Windows 8 was released and set themselves down a path that may provide an easy argument for MS as they have set off with an entire Steam OS that could be argued competes with Windows as a whole.

DSoup said:
Sorry OT - no, Microsoft are still under the thumb for those things that happened decades back.
Click to expand...
As pointed out above, the IE obligations have now expired.
 
Too bad China just opened up an antitrust investigation of MS back in September. Guess for what action?

Drum roll....

Bundling of IE and Windows Media Player.
 
Davros said:
A bit silly that
"users must have an equal choice of browser, but only until december 2014"
Click to expand...
The market share of IE is now so low it would be a challenge to say Microsoft had undue influence in the browser market. We have to use it at work (Government) due to security requirements. You can't run unapproved programs and the firewalls are profiled for IE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DSoup said:
The market share of IE is now so low it would be a challenge to say Microsoft had undue influence in the browser market. We have to use it at work (Government) due to security requirements. You can't run approved programs and the firewalls are profiled for IE.
Click to expand...

Yeah IE has been decimated. When I started my websites years ago IE was by far the lions share of browser use, it was totally lopsided. Now my analytics read like this:

1. Chrome 34.57%
2. Firefox 19.85%
3. Internet Explorer 18.62%
4. Safari 14.29%

That's from many millions of hits per year of traffic. Hell even Safari has almost caught it. In any case as far as anti trust goes, I don't think that applies to devices that a company makes themselves no? I can see how Microsoft controlling everyone's pc's raised concerns, but with the XB1 it's their own box that they make, aren't they allowed to do anything they want on it?
 
joker454 said:
Yeah IE has been decimated. When I started my websites years ago IE was by far the lions share of browser use, it was totally lopsided.
Click to expand...

IE has declined with some interesting other statistics. Coincidence? :runaway:

ie-vs-web-designer-suicide-rate.jpg


In any case as far as anti trust goes, I don't think that applies to devices that a company makes themselves no? I can see how Microsoft controlling everyone's pc's raised concerns, but with the XB1 it's their own box that they make, aren't they allowed to do anything they want on it?
Click to expand...

No. Nor can Apple do what they like. If Apple had 80% of the mobile OS market then there was likely be serious investigations in how closed the OS is. They've only just recently allowed keyboard extensions and there's still no way to swap Safari for another browser or Mail for another email client. You can install Chrome and other software but it will never integrate as seamlessly as Apple's software making it difficult for others to compete. Using the EU ruling against Microsoft as a basis, that seems to be the epitome of an anti-competitive software policy.

If Sony went down the drain and Nintendo went back to making board games, Microsoft would have a natural monopoly in the consoles market (defined by market size and revenue) and anybody with a legitimate grievance about the way Microsoft ran the Xbox business could make a case to be heard. What a legitimate grievance might be I don't know. Costs may be cited as barrier to entry perhaps, but as far as I know, anybody can develop for Xbox if you have a licence, a devkit and account and your code doesn't fail the TRCs. Do Microsoft (or Sony or Nintendo) curate more than that? It looks like a fairly free (as in open) ecosystem, if not free in cost. But then why should Microsoft have to provide a free SDK or support for developers. They are costs associated with developing and maintaining their dev systems and dev programme so it's only fair these are passed on to what is clearly a commercial operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top