Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by benologist 2118 days ago
The congresspeople who investigated them for a year and a half also think they are abusive.

> the investigation has confirmed that Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook are all abusing their market power to the detriment of consumers

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...

1 comments

But not Microsoft who still own 95% of the desktop market. I guess the others need to start funding more politicians.
Common misconception. A monopoly itself is not illegal. What is illegal is using that monopoly/market power to keep out competitors.

Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example.

If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.

That is not in fact “illegal”. If it were always “illegal” then Apple, Microsoft (Xbox), Sony, Nintendo, Roku, etc would all be breaking the law.
I already responded to this in another thread, but the only thing that I will do here is encourage you to read up on the publicly available, and well accepted information that the government has released.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. "

If it were so cut and try that anyone could be an expert based on reading one FTC rule, why has it taken 30 years and none of the platform vendors - including the console makers - been taken to court? Maybe HN posters aren’t lawyers?
> If it were so cut

Are you straight up denying the government link that I posted to you?.

> Maybe HN posters aren’t lawyers?

I have posted direct links to government information here.

If you are going to claim that the FTC website is lying to everyone, then I am not sure what to tell you. You are too far lost to ever be convinced of anything.

This is the FTC website. They are the government. They are the experts. They decide what is right or wrong. They are the primary source here!

The only opinion that matters here is the government's, as they are the ones who enforce the law!

I think that I am going to listen to the opinion of the government lawyers, over the opinion of someone who is straight up denying the government approved information that I posted.

> Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example.

Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows and not allowing licensees (OEMs) to preinstall Netscape, even though nothing prevented users from installing the software after the fact.

> If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.

Isn't this the case for Windows RT, or is that dead already?

To be fair to microsoft, they really seem to hav gotten their act together in the aftermath of that event. Admittedly they seem to be slipping back into some bad habits recently. But they seem to be a good deal better behaves than Apple and other big tech companies for now. And I suspect a lot of that is to do with the lawsuit. IMO the world would be a better place if anti-trust laws were enforced stronger than they currently are.
> Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows

This was actually overturned during the appeal. Whether the act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was ultimately never decided by the courts. (The OEM stuff and other actions by Microsoft were ruled to be antitrust violations, however.)

> Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows and not allowing licensees (OEMs) to preinstall Netscape, even though nothing prevented users from installing the software after the fact.

Umm, yeah, but Apple has this policy on their phones permanently, and I haven’t seen any regulation against that yet.

Could be the case for Windows RT but I'm not sure if that's relevant in this case because RT has a small market share.
> Isn't this the case for Windows RT, or is that dead already?

IDK about RT but IIRC this is the main distinguishing factor of 10S

That was 20 years ago.
Monopoly power is not a prerequisite for abuse of market power. And abuse of market power is not a necessary result of monopoly power.