[Kednicma]

Presumably Microsoft, having been convicted once already, is not going to be given such benefit of the doubt as to be invited to a hearing; instead, folks may well decide to bring suit against them without bothering to drag them before Congress as a pretext.

Moreover, Microsoft doesn't have a flagship product which they're using to abuse their monopoly position. The other four do: Apple has its app store, Google has its search+ads vertical and its app store, Amazon has its delivery service, and Facebook has its social+ads vertical.

[scarface74]

And only if you redefine “monopoly” as “only one company gets to sell its own products”. Why not drag the console makers in too?

[im3w1l]

Neither console game developers nor console game players are complaining. I think it's really that simple.

EDIT: And I think I know the reason why. Imagine your kid has a birthday party and invites Alice, Bob and Charlie from school. All is fine. Imagine now that he invites everyone from his grade. Everyone except David. That is bound to piss David off a lot.

Oh and I think game deals are cleared in advance, while app removals happen after you've already done the work.

[smileybarry]

It's mostly understandable because, historically, video game exclusives were either developed or published by the console manufacturer. Some people might get annoyed that this cool game isn't coming to their platform of choice, but as soon as they saw "published by Sony", they understood.

They've also helped pay for the console with hardware sold at a loss (near-loss nowadays after the PS3 loss mess). So it was seen as a necessary "evil" by most.

The one being seen nowadays as bad -- which answers your "everyone except David" metaphor -- is Epic Games buying "everyone except Steam" exclusivity deals. But that topic is too deep to go into here.

[mrep]

Consoles are also harder to pirate games on which I'm guessing is why rockstar games always releases first on consoles.

[zozbot234]

I'd say Amazon's "flagship product" is its platform, not so much its delivery. You might call it a platform+delivery-logistics vertical. Regardless, their ownership of the dominant platform for ecommerce does put third-party vendors (and possibly consumers) at a disadvantage.

[Kednicma]

This is a good point. The major negative impact of Amazon is on labor rights. I had a sobering conversation with a canvasser who came to my door last week; they were gathering signatures for a local bill, but their other job was at the Amazon warehouse, and they suggested that walking in the hot sun and talking to hostile folks in their home was far easier than running up and down the halls of Fulfillment.

It's a common sentiment that Sherman Antitrust was a prerequisite for prosecuting and breaking up trusts a century ago; we needed powerful legislative tools in order to even define and understand the abuses that those corporations brought upon us. Similarly, I have heard many people suggest that we will need new legislation in order to properly describe what Amazon has built in terms of systems which deliberately abuse labor, control shoppers, and grift the public.