[posix86]

You're talking about tying things together like Microsoft Word with onedrive etc.? This sounds backwards to me. The "tying together" only feels like "tying" because you get used to the extent the services interact with each other, which is very convenient, and feel like you're unable to change, because you're unwilling to let go of those easy ways of interacting with other services.

But that doesn't make the interaction anti-competitive; it makes them a nice product. It wouldn't make sense for MS to allow, say, other clients to MS Word to interact with their cloud, that would be anti-competitive in that they're actively shooting themselves in the foot while doing it. I don't see why this is a bad thing.

And in general, the fact that we're even converging from multiple services towards one is purely historical. The reason MS word & excel are two separate programs rather than one is due to the tech landscape on the past. Google Docs or Notion or Coda are all supersets ot Word vs Excel, using newer tech & hardware to provide a more unified experience, which IS in the interest of the user.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The "tying together" only feels like "tying" because you get used to the extent the services interact with each other, which is very convenient, and feel like you're unable to change, because you're unwilling to let go of those easy ways of interacting with other services.

The tying together is tying together because you can sensibly separate them and the customer might like to use Microsoft Word with Google Drive or LibreOffice with OneDrive.

> It wouldn't make sense for MS to allow, say, other clients to MS Word to interact with their cloud, that would be anti-competitive in that they're actively shooting themselves in the foot while doing it.

It would be anti-competitive in that it would make it easier to compete with them?

> Google Docs or Notion or Coda are all supersets ot Word vs Excel, using newer tech & hardware to provide a more unified experience, which IS in the interest of the user.

The problem with the "unified experience" argument is that it only justifies putting them together, not inhibiting the customer from separating them. If the "unified experience" is actually in the interest of the customer then they'll choose it even when the alternative is available.

[fallingknife]

> The tying together is tying together because you can sensibly separate them and the customer might like to use Microsoft Word with Google Drive or LibreOffice with OneDrive.

They might like to, but those options are just not available in the market, and that's not an anti-trust issue. I might like to have a Tesla with Apple Car play. I might like to have Ford Ranger with an engine made by Toyota. But these companies are under no obligation to satisfy my desires. I am free to make those combinations happen at great inconvenience to myself, but those companies are in no way expected to help me do that.

[AnthonyMouse]

The issue is not the inconvenience unless they took action to make it inconvenient on purpose. It's when they do take action to make it inconvenient on purpose, or prohibit it through contracts or DRM.

[posix86]

Really? The reason it's not possible to put a Ford engine in a Toyota is not that Toyota purposefully make their cars not fit Ford motors; it's because they're not keen on making it so. It takes way more effort to create a unified standardized interface that 3rd parties can connect to rather than just making the interface fit your product. That's what I mean about actively shooting themselves in the foot: They spend money exposing the interface such that others can connect to it, and then loose money by others providing 3rd party services connecting to them.

[AnthonyMouse]

It is possible to put a Ford engine in a Toyota. People have done it. It's not as simple as dropping it in but it's fundamentally a thing of approximately the same size that runs on gasoline and produces torque.

> That's what I mean about actively shooting themselves in the foot: They spend money exposing the interface such that others can connect to it, and then loose money by others providing 3rd party services connecting to them.

Let's separate this into two pieces. One of them is the benefit of the anti-competitive action: If you want Office you need OneDrive which drives more business to OneDrive, and vice versa. The other is the benefit to each of the services of compatibility with other services. This is not losing money, it's making money because now customers with LibreOffice can use OneDrive (increasing use of OneDrive) and customers of Google Drive can use Office (increasing use of Office).

The problem, which is why the law is supposed to proscribe this, is that the company profits more from the anti-competitive tying than it does from the compatibility. The "loss" attributable to customers having more choice is the evil the law is intended to prevent.

The annoying thing about this is that it's squishy. Active Directory is basically DNS and Kerberos and LDAP, except that it isn't. If you try to swap in some standard third party LDAP server for Microsoft's, it breaks. Is that because they made some valuable integrations that customers prefer, or because they're Microsoft doing EEE? What if it's a little of both, does that mean they should get away with it?

But if Samba then does the work to make a Microsoft-compatible implementation and then Microsoft breaks it or enters into contracts with customers that prevent them from using a Microsoft product with the competing directory implementation, that is no longer ambiguous.