[azalemeth]

Honestly, I think the regulators should look at basically all of those things. Here in Europe scrutiny is building and a lot of those organisations do party hard and play loose with the rules. Microsoft is famously anticompetitive, but Adobe, Google and Apple can't be far behind in their respective areas.

[scarface74]

Really? So you really think companies shouldn’t be able to sell software that works together bundled together? Why stop there? Phones and computers shouldn’t be “bundled” with operating systems? Computers shouldn’t be “bundled” with sound hardware? Where does it stop?

[cratermoon]

Bundling is fine. Bundling by a company that is a monopoly in the space is (or rather, used to be) a violation of antitrust law. But see Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, especially sections IIA and IIIB: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

[scarface74]

So in that case, every cable company is a local monopoly and shouldn’t be allowed to bundle channels. Doesn’t anyone see how silly this sounds in 2022?

Disney is by far the largest entertainment conglomerate. Should they not be allowed to bundle Hulu, Disney and ESPN?

Intel has over 80% of the PC market, how much hardware should they be able to bundle on their motherboard?

And HN has a habit of calling any big company a “monopoly”. Amazon only has 56% share of e-commerce and a tiny share of all commerce in the US

But getting back to MS Office, I have three “office suites” right now on my phone - all three made by companies worth 1 trillion dollars - Google, Microsoft, and Apple.

There is no “monopoly” in the IDP space.

[cratermoon]

> every cable company is a local monopoly

A regulated monopoly. Key difference. Although of course today "regulated" is largely a legal fiction. Nevertheless, it's not so simple as pointing out who has the most market share. It's a pretty messy area of the law, and the field is heavily tilted by money, even more so than most areas of the law.

[scarface74]

It’s not a “messy” area at all. It’s just a misunderstanding of the law. If what you’re saying is truly “illegal”, no court of law has found it so since Office was introduced over 30 years ago.

What’s more likely, that “bundling” as you define it is illegal and has never been prosecuted in over 3 decades or that you don’t understand the law?

[cratermoon]

It's far more likely I don't understand the law, but the discussion had turned from bundling to monopoly and antitrust questions, and I stand by my statements, as confirmed in the source I linked.