Because they don’t want to make a blanket statement about it.
they will do what they think makes the most sense.
Microsoft acquires ZeniMax Media (Bethesda, id Software, Arkane + 5 more) [2020-09-21, 2021-03-09]
- Thread starter chris1515
- Start date
- Status
they will do what they think makes the most sense.
Because they won't all be and until the two companies finish the purchase next year they can't really hash out what stays what?
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
You are aware that Sony made a deal with MS to use Azure for it's gaming and streaming services right? Not just that but AI too i.e. ML.
https://news.microsoft.com/2019/05/16/sony-and-microsoft-to-explore-strategic-partnership/
Nope, I wasn't.
I am not sure where that leaves them when the streaming will be more prevalent than local gaming...
The way I see it, MS will do everything they can for that to be sooner than later.
Edit.
I have read the link.
I'm guessing that a memorandum of understanding carries a few caveats.
But without knowing what this deal of "exploration" entails, we cannot be certain what will come out of it.
My guess is, that if Sony see themselves as just publishers in the future, they will go full azure.
Last edited:
If Kirk travelled back in time to hijack a plane, I can only assume it was for an Earth-Shatnering reason.
Explore strategic partnership.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
You guys missed, "“Sony has always been a leader in both entertainment and technology, and the collaboration we announced today builds on this history of innovation,” said Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft. “Our partnership brings the power of Azure and Azure AI to Sony to deliver new gaming and entertainment experiences for customers.”
That sounds more than an exploration. I see in 2017 that Sony and MS made a deal to use Sony's Crackle on Azure. This also seems to expand on that. Never heard of Crackle though.
That sounds more than an exploration. I see in 2017 that Sony and MS made a deal to use Sony's Crackle on Azure. This also seems to expand on that. Never heard of Crackle though.
If Sony wants to do anything significant with cloud compute or game streaming they're going to need a cloud services partner; they don't have the infrastructure or the resources to get the infrastructure on their own. All that deal really indicates is that if they decide to move forward with anything that requires a cloud partner that it's more likely going to be Azure than AWS.
But realistically it had to be one of those two anyway. And with the Luna announcement, they're both competitors now.
But realistically it had to be one of those two anyway. And with the Luna announcement, they're both competitors now.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I had previously posted it in another thread.
Epic Sues Apple and Google due to Fortnite getting pulled [2020-08-13]
The key wording in this case is behavior deemed to be designed to gain a monopoly. Anti-trust cases are often interwoven with monopolistic behavior regardless of whether a business or corporation holds a monopoly.
As such the FTC looks at behavior that exhibits monopolistic behavior that is or can be deleterious to the consumer or an open market, again without respect to whether the business or corporation holds a monopoly.
In the US, being a monopoly just means that the government will keep a closer eye on you, but if monopolistic behavior that is deemed to be harmful to either consumers or competition in the marketplace, then a suit can (and often has) been brought against companies that do not hold a monopoly. It doesn't even necessarily have to be an oligopoly. However, cases not involving a monopoly rarely see widespread coverage in the media. Microsoft being indicted for monopolistic behavior will bring more user views to a news organization than say Fred's Appliances.
Of course, we won't even get into the potential political dealings that surround some of these. EG - Obama stepping in to give Apple immunity from a judgement by the FTC while he was in office, for example.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I saw that and nowhere is the alleged infringed US anti-competative legislation referenced, what you have linked is a bunch of media and blog posts. In the US, you can sue somebody for wearing a green jacket but that doesn't make it illegal or anti-competitive, nor does anti-competition legislation trigger just because somebody (Epic) have used these terms in their civil filing.
The US has three pieces of anti-consumer law, 1) The Sherman Act, 2) The FCT Act and 3) The Clayton Act. And none prohibit the Apple scenario. If Apple were infringing, it would be the FTC who would investigate and initiate a federal prosecution if abuses were found. If Apple were seriously in breach of anti-competitive legislation, the EU would be all over them because the EU legislation is much stronger from the point of consumer protection. The EU love to target such business because it's free money. Microsoft were a big contributor to EU funding for a decade due to past transgressions.
So I invite you again, link to the specific provision of the legislation that Apple infringes.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Eh? This is a government website, not a blog.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings
That's a list of anti-trust cases often involving monopolistic behavior by businesses which do not hold a monopoly.
If you want something slightly more authoritative than investopedia (which I used because I didn't have time to look up other sources and it contained the correct information that was relevant to the discussion), how about Cornell Law School.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_antitrust_act
...or attempts at monopolizing...
As well as...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clayton_antitrust_act
Neither of which specifies that an entity must be or hold a monopoly.
The wikipedia entry has the original wording if you want that as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890
The original wording also has no mention of being a monopoly. As a result, in the US it is often applied without a business or entity holding a monopoly in any product or sector. A monopoly in the US just makes the entity more visible and hence generally under more scrutiny.
It also holds that a person or persons (business or corporation) cannot unreasonably restrain competition.
Any source you look at will tell you this. You are free to not believe any of the sources (including prestigious law schools), of course.
I also make no claims that Apple is infringing anything, that is up to the government to determine. What I'm stating is that you do not have to hold a monopoly to be indicted for monopolistic or anti-competitive behavior. Hence, Apple not being a monopoly doesn't preclude them from being prosecuted for monopolistic or anti-competitive/anti-consumer behavior.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
@Silent_Buddha quoting quotes quickly falls apart so a non-quote response. How does the Sherman Act apply? Apple is selling a bunch of devices to a very small number of people in the mobile market. The issue here is not that Apple is seeking to establish a monopoly, or even control the market, but that Epic (and others) do not want to pay Apple (and Google) a 30% cut for transactions. Nor does Apple's position restrain competition in the market because Apple's customer base is tiny and the market is massive. I would agree that from a devs position, it should be much easier to asset pressure on Apple but withdrawing App support, driving Apple customers to other platforms.
Remember Google also take a 30% cut on transactions made through their payment system and Android has what is much closer to (but not legally) a market monopoly. Not wanting to pay something is not a basis for convincing a jury that an act is anti-competitive. I don't like paying as much as I do for gym membership but it's not anti-competitive. If I start selling cars and Bob down the road sells them cheaper that's not inherently anti-competitive. To apply anti-competitive behaviour there has to be a specific, and citable, breach of one of the provisions of the three Acts.
But fundamentally, if Apple were abusing anti-competition law, it would be the FTC to investigate and prosecute, not Epic. Epic are filing a civil suit. If they genuinely Appel was in a position of use of anti-competitive behaviour they would file complaints with the FTC and EU and have the Government Regulators force Apple to change.
What it's worth, I think taking 30% on the value of transactions is absolutely outrageously, whether it's iOS, Android, PSN or Live transactions. A 30% cut of the value of what could be years of work and tens of millions of man hours, just for processing a payment? WTF.
Remember Google also take a 30% cut on transactions made through their payment system and Android has what is much closer to (but not legally) a market monopoly. Not wanting to pay something is not a basis for convincing a jury that an act is anti-competitive. I don't like paying as much as I do for gym membership but it's not anti-competitive. If I start selling cars and Bob down the road sells them cheaper that's not inherently anti-competitive. To apply anti-competitive behaviour there has to be a specific, and citable, breach of one of the provisions of the three Acts.
But fundamentally, if Apple were abusing anti-competition law, it would be the FTC to investigate and prosecute, not Epic. Epic are filing a civil suit. If they genuinely Appel was in a position of use of anti-competitive behaviour they would file complaints with the FTC and EU and have the Government Regulators force Apple to change.
What it's worth, I think taking 30% on the value of transactions is absolutely outrageously, whether it's iOS, Android, PSN or Live transactions. A 30% cut of the value of what could be years of work and tens of millions of man hours, just for processing a payment? WTF.
arandomguy
Veteran
Is that the case? As far as I know it's very common for there to be civil suits from private plaintiffs accusing the defendant of anti-trust violations? There's even a recent supreme court ruling specifically against Apple allowing a civil class action against Apple for anti-trust violations with respect to the app store. Regardless of the viewpoints of this particular case I'm not seeing how anti-trust violations are purely in the purview of the government as there is plenty precedent saying otherwise?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Again, I'm not getting into whether they are or are not violating anything. All I'm stating is that they aren't immune from anti-trust (monopolistic, anti-consumer or anti-competitive behavior) prosecution.
If I were to hypothesize. If someone could make a compelling case they could argue that while Apple devices don't hold a majority of the market (they are close to doing so in the US) they do hold a virtual Oligopoly with Google. Of course, Google doesn't control all Android environments so there are alternative storefronts on those devices.
But if further focus on the Apple app ecosystem versus the Android app ecosystem (with the various storefronts), going by some data on the internet it's evident that Apple pulls in significantly more app revenue than all of the Android app storefronts.
In such a position WRT to mobile app developers, Apple could potentially be seen as holding monopoly or near monopolistic influence/power over app. developers. It doesn't matter that they are in that position because consumer choose to spend more money on iOS than they do on Android. Just like it didn't matter that Microsoft held monopolistic power because people chose to use Windows PCs over other computing devices.
It certainly doesn't help that Apple parcel out preferential treatment to some companies but not to others. That could be the foundation for abusing their position and their power over that market. Despite the market (iOS app ecosystem) being entirely of Apple's manufacture it is still a market subject to federal regulation and oversight.
If the federal government or the FTC feels that this negatively affects competition in the app market place or negatively affects consumers they could feel there is justification for doing something. If they don't then nothing happens.
We do know that the federal government is interested and concerned as Apple was recently brought in for an antitrust hearing in front of Congress. That is irrespective of and predates whatever Epic does. It basically shows a level of concern by the government about Apple's impact on various facets related to competition in the marketplace and its impact on consumers and app developers.
This does not necessarily mean that Congress will or won't ask the FTC (or any other relevant governmental body) to bring a case against Apple (or any of the other companies that were asked to attend the hearing and present their case). But it does show that the government is concerned enough to have Apple and the other companies appear before them.
It's also letting Apple know that the government will be paying closer attention to what they do.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
That was last year. The exploration has produced Sony now embedding Azure AI tech into its sensors for smart cameras with Sony expecting its mid to long term relationship with MS to be very strong.
https://siliconangle.com/2020/05/19/microsoft-helps-sony-power-worlds-first-ai-image-sensor-azure/
Impressive quality and amount of studios they have.
Nice interview with Phil Spencer on Yahoo Finance that's getting some attention...
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/xbox-series-x-most-powerful-170813309.html
If you tie this with an interview Phil did with Ryan McCaffrey on IGN's Unlocked back on April 1, then you can kind of see how exclusives might work going forward...
Swap out Switch with Playstation & you get the gist of how I think it will work going forward.
Tommy McClain
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/xbox-series-x-most-powerful-170813309.html
If you tie this with an interview Phil did with Ryan McCaffrey on IGN's Unlocked back on April 1, then you can kind of see how exclusives might work going forward...
Swap out Switch with Playstation & you get the gist of how I think it will work going forward.
Tommy McClain
- Status