[mncharity]

> is the platforms-vs-publishers relationship top of mind for you?

More that the press does narratives, which are often the creation of, or strongly influenced by, long-term PR campaigns.

My very fuzzy understanding is, atleast after the Microsoft-Google nonaggression pact some years ago, the largest interest pushing the anti-BigTech narrative has been Hollywood, wishing to regulate the lawless internet and reduce tech industry influence.

One thing that's puzzled me, and I'd appreciate any insight, is how Microsoft got dropped from the Big Tech set.

[Legogris]

Microsoft simply isn't a big player for the consumer/luser segment anymore when it comes to the services that tend to come up in these conversation (e-mail, social, ads, etc). For these services they're more B2B. They're not a data company like Google or Facebook.

Interesting, though, how their compliance with censoring and filtering etc in China for years barely register compared to the outrage Google gets for even preparing for it.

And thinking about it, Microsoft IS big in social with acquisitions like LinkedIn, Skype and GitHub. But no one's getting concerned or outraged on those accounts. After being the nemesis for so long, I think they have learned to play this game very well this time around.

[marssaxman]

I have wondered the same thing - Netflix is an obvious outlier among the Big 5, and Microsoft an equally obvious omission. Apparently the "FAANG" idea is a Wall Street thing, a grouping based on financial rather than technical impact.

[rchaud]

"BRICS" was a Goldman Sachs invented acronym, coined in 2002, and was frequently used by policymakers and press for at least a decade, despite nobody ever seeing common threads between the economic structures and populations of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

[charles_f]

Same. I guess it is because Microsoft is a relatively smaller company established in rural Washington and focusing its efforts on FOSS. Nothing to be worried about there.