Support NeoGAF

[Three]

The article quotes Brad Smith. Who cares? It doesn't change the reality that MS is not leading the gaming market and is not a monopoly. If Sony has 70% of the market they certainly don't need protection. No competitor should unless laws are being broken.

When somebody asks where a quote is from they obviously want to know who the source is. The fact that ign also read the quote somewhere and put it in their article doesn't mean that's where the quote is from. You might as well put "loo stall door gas station 6" because somebody might have written it there too.

And of course it matters, Brad Smith, vice chairman of MS is obviously playing the same dumb self deprecation game for regulators by not being very truthful with the numbers.

 

[ChiefDada]

To avoid a Deal or No Deal situation, sign up while the offering is good. Keep rejecting and you put yourself in a tough situation if the regulators approve the deal without any firm commitments signed upon.

Sure it may pass with signed commitments, but there's no guarantee they'll be as good as what MS are offering.

You're the dumbass that makes yearly purchases from the furniture store with the "final liquidation/everything must go" sign, aren't you?

 

[GruntosUK]

Office isn't a failure at all but is definitely an example of their extreme greed and anti consumer business practices. You do know there was a time when you bought windows you got everything in that one package. Once Microsoft realized they were the only game in town they sold it to you piece by piece. They love us consumers.

When? I've been using PC's since the DOS days and I don't remember this.

 

[intheinbetween]

When? I've been using PC's since the DOS days and I don't remember this.

Same here, iirc Office was released back in early 90s, and I remember in Windows you could find Wordpad, the basic version of Word.

Office 365 is nice because you can easily get 1 year licenses for 30$ or 50$ for family plans, which imo are decent prices.

 

[Three]

When? I've been using PC's since the DOS days and I don't remember this.

Same here, iirc Office was released back in early 90s, and I remember in Windows you could find Wordpad, the basic version of Word.

Office 365 is nice because you can easily get 1 year licenses for 30$ or 50$ for family plans, which imo are decent prices.

They were bundled with windows.

Articles | InformIT

www.informit.com

"The big claim to fame for Windows 2.0, however, was that it came bundled with Microsoft's Word and Excel applications. Word and Excel were graphical apps competing against the text-based interfaces of then-reigning competitors WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3; the Microsoft apps needed a GUI shell to run properly, hence the bundling with Windows."

 

[bitbydeath]

Stop being stupid. Office365 has nothing to do with cloud computing and Azure isn't really cited to start 5-6 years later. You aren't even close. This is a huge derail so happy to have it elsewhere but this ain't it.

That's how it works.
Microsoft To-Do started out as Wunderlist
Microsoft Teams started out as Skype
Microsoft Azure started out as Groove Network

 

[Chiggs]

Umm I'm not sure why you're bringing up this case as comparison. I feel like sometimes (not always) you post tangential information without the crucial context that is needed to understand. VR is a relatively nascent market, console industry is not. We can easily define markets and submarkets for appropriate antitrust inquiries surrounding Activision/CoD. FTC will have a much more difficult time with such identification for Meta case, although I understand what they are trying to avoid. Furthermore, we have hard data in the form of years worth of financial information from all three current console manufacturers that support the supposition that, AS IT RELATES TO THE CoD IP AND DEAL UNDER REVIEW, MICROSOFT AND SONY ARE THE KEY PLAYERS AND SONY IS THE KEY COMPETITOR THAT CAN POTENTIALLY BE HARMED, THUS INDIRECTLY HARMING CONSUMERS BY WAY OF REDUCED COMPETITION.

For those who are pro Microsoft, please read the bolded at least 5x and really understand antitrust fundamentals before responding with the tired rebuttal of what is and isn't the FTC/regulators' job.

I agree with what you're saying, but let's be fair: if you're Pro-Sony, then you're probably performing the same mental gymnastics the FTC is while trying to figure out how to present the case to the judge, especially if Microsoft offered a ten-year, legally-binding deal.

The more I read about the FTC's case, the weaker it appears to be. Again, that's no guarantee that MS wins it, but if the FTC is looking to set a precedent here, they have an uphill battle.

And please don't accuse me of being pro-MS. I'm honestly floored by how Nice Guy Phil has bungled this deal so badly. It's clown shoes territory. I think he needs to be removed.

 

[12Dannu123]

When somebody asks where a quote is from they obviously want to know who the source is. The fact that ign also read the quote somewhere and put it in their article doesn't mean that's where the quote is from. You might as well put "loo stall door gas station 6" because somebody might have written it there too.

And of course it matters, Brad Smith, vice chairman of MS is obviously playing the same dumb self deprecation game for regulators by not being very truthful with the numbers.

Regardless, it doesn't stop the fact that FTC, CMA or EC doesn't have a solid case against the acquisition. Because the cases against are purely driven by ideology and not credible facts.

 

[Thirty7ven]

So what happens if the CMA/EC block the case, keep writing bs about them having no case?

 

[Three]

Regardless, it doesn't stop the fact that FTC, CMA or EC doesn't have a solid case against the acquisition. Because the cases against are purely driven by ideology and not credible facts.

The FTC would be looking at the US marketshare, not Brad Smith's fabricated global marketshare.

 

[Chiggs]

Regardless, it doesn't stop the fact that FTC, CMA or EC doesn't have a solid case against the acquisition. Because the cases against are purely driven by ideology and not credible facts.

This is what I keep coming back to. I'm waiting for that slam dunk argument which just shuts the whole thing down. Right now, it seems largely speculative and ideological.

Then again, a move like this could win the FTC the hearts and minds of consumers, who will look at a big company trying to get bigger and automatically think "that's bad." So in some cases, simply filing it may have been the right move, even if they only have a puncher's chance.

The FTC would be looking at the US marketshare, not Brad Smith's fabricated global marketshare.

Which is still fairly meager. Not like MS has been some sort of unstoppable force in gaming.

 

[GHG]

So what happens if the CMA/EC block the case, keep writing bs about them having no case?

Move to Brazil and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Three]

Which is still fairly meager. Not like MS has been some sort of unstoppable force in gaming.

It's not meager depending on what submarkets we're referring to. If you are including Apple and Google in mobile then yeah but if not then it's pretty big. That supposed 70/30 split becomes 50/50 prior to the acquisition.

 

[feynoob]

Umm I'm not sure why you're bringing up this case as comparison. I feel like sometimes (not always) you post tangential information without the crucial context that is needed to understand. VR is a relatively nascent market, console industry is not. We can easily define markets and submarkets for appropriate antitrust inquiries surrounding Activision/CoD. FTC will have a much more difficult time with such identification for Meta case, although I understand what they are trying to avoid. Furthermore, we have hard data in the form of years worth of financial information from all three current console manufacturers that support the supposition that, AS IT RELATES TO THE CoD IP AND DEAL UNDER REVIEW, MICROSOFT AND SONY ARE THE KEY PLAYERS AND SONY IS THE KEY COMPETITOR THAT CAN POTENTIALLY BE HARMED, THUS INDIRECTLY HARMING CONSUMERS BY WAY OF REDUCED COMPETITION.

For those who are pro Microsoft, please read the bolded at least 5x and really understand antitrust fundamentals before responding with the tired rebuttal of what is and isn't the FTC/regulators' job.

COD IP issue can be fixed by asking them not to remove the game.

The issue here is that, FTC isn't going after COD IP, but the nascent markets.

Even there is a chatter that CMA is likely to drop those claims from their phase 2 findings.

 

[Ozriel]

Office isn't a failure at all but is definitely an example of their extreme greed and anti consumer business practices. You do know there was a time when you bought windows you got everything in that one package. Once Microsoft realized they were the only game in town they sold it to you piece by piece. They love us consumers.

Lmao. Microsoft would be facing massive antitrust probes if they tried bundling Office with Windows.

And no, they aren't the only game in town. They're just the best at it with the Office suite. This is so much nonsense.

I don't see anything 'extreme greed' and 'anti-consumer' with Office. It's worth the asking price, and Office 365 is a pretty good package offering.

 

[Ozriel]

COD IP issue can be fixed by asking them not to remove the game.

The issue here is that, FTC isn't going after COD IP, but the nascent markets.

Even there is a chatter that CMA is likely to drop those claims from their phase 2 findings.

The difficulty in entering the nascent markets is really about content - the sheer depth of the back catalogue and first party lineup the console makers own. Even if COD remains Multiplatform on every cloud platform, anyone else not PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo or tied to Steam will struggle to break in.

Might have to force the console makers or Steam to license their Libraries and first party output on fair terms to new Cloud entrants If the aim is to make it viable for anyone to enter in the future.

 

[Thirty7ven]

So with Apple allowing third party stores and Google opening up to other cloud services, the argument that we need a big bad wolf MS in order to break open that market is officially dead.

 

[Cyborg]

Seems it will go through and it will come to bite us in the ass.

 

[oldergamer]

Lmao. Microsoft would be facing massive antitrust probes if they tried bundling Office with Windows.

And no, they aren't the only game in town. They're just the best at it with the Office suite. This is so much nonsense.

I don't see anything 'extreme greed' and 'anti-consumer' with Office. It's worth the asking price, and Office 365 is a pretty good package offering.

They never bundled office with windows to sell windows. Office competed with word straight up. Dunno what osiris is talking about...

 

[Chiggs]

It's not meager depending on what submarkets we're referring to. If you are including Apple and Google in mobile then yeah but if not then it's pretty big. That supposed 70/30 split becomes 50/50 prior to the acquisition.

It does depend on what numbers are being used, which should be a real treat for all of us when this thing goes to trial. But if we look at 2021 global market share (we'll use a standard report for argument's sake):

https://www.ampereanalysis.com/insight/console-market-reaches-new-heights-with-growth-to-60-billion

• Sony: 46%
• Nintendo: 29%
• Microsoft: 25%

--it becomes a little harder of a case to make.

Also, when Sony is called to testify, I'd expect nothing less than trial by fire by Microsoft's lawyers. The whole thing is gonna get ugly.

And they said console wars were over.

 

[Nothing1234]

Seems it will go through and it will come to bite us in the ass.

I don't think anyone can say with any certainty which way this will go.

 

[GruntosUK]

They were bundled with windows.

http://[URL]https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1358665&seqNum=2

[/URL]

"The big claim to fame for Windows 2.0, however, was that it came bundled with Microsoft's Word and Excel applications. Word and Excel were graphical apps competing against the text-based interfaces of then-reigning competitors WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3; the Microsoft apps needed a GUI shell to run properly, hence the bundling with Windows."

I might be being pedantic. but Office was always classed as Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access in those days from what I remember.

 

[HoofHearted]

They were bundled with windows.

Articles | InformIT

www.informit.com

"The big claim to fame for Windows 2.0, however, was that it came bundled with Microsoft's Word and Excel applications. Word and Excel were graphical apps competing against the text-based interfaces of then-reigning competitors WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3; the Microsoft apps needed a GUI shell to run properly, hence the bundling with Windows."

That explains it - I never used Windows 1 or 2. Back then DOS was still mainstream and everyone was using WordPerfect or WordStar.

Windows really didn't go mainstream until 3.1. At that time Word 6 became available and I remember it being stupid expensive.

 

[OsirisBlack]

When? I've been using PC's since the DOS days and I don't remember this.

Edited:
Never mind someone beat me to it thank you.

 

[feynoob]

So with Apple allowing third party stores and Google opening up to other cloud services, the argument that we need a big bad wolf MS in order to break open that market is officially dead.

Not dead yet.
Google and apple are still strong, as they own the majority of the markets on mobile (app store, play store).

 

[Three]

I might be being pedantic. but Office was always classed as Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access in those days from what I remember.

yeah . Access didn't exist back then if I remember right. The first ever bundle was Word, Excel, PowerPoint in the 1990s. They bought Powerpoint for $14M from some other company. PowerPoint was initially a piece of software for the Macintosh and they bought them out and bundled it with Word and Excel.

That explains it - I never used Windows 1 or 2. Back then DOS was still mainstream and everyone was using WordPerfect or WordStar.

Windows really didn't go mainstream until 3.1. At that time Word 6 became available and I remember it being stupid expensive.

They killed the then word processing market leader Wordperfect with their aggressive OS bundling, with the then popular windows 3.0 and restricted interoperability too (API access) so wordperfect ran poorly. Then once they were dead Word 6 was expensive and no longer being offered free like previous versions. Office was $995 in 1990, Word 6 $490 or something crazy like that.

 

[Ozriel]

So with Apple allowing third party stores and Google opening up to other cloud services, the argument that we need a big bad wolf MS in order to break open that market is officially dead.

Allowing other stores doesn't mean a storefront duopoly is dead or threatened.

Google's cloud move doesn't also contribute anything to your argument, since you could always access other cloud services from the same device, via the same browser.

Shouldn't you be arguing that this added search exposure makes it easier for new entrants in the streaming business to break into the market?

 

[ReBurn]

That's how it works.
Microsoft To-Do started out as Wunderlist
Microsoft Teams started out as Skype
Microsoft Azure started out as Groove Network

Sony PlayStation started out as a Super Nintendo

I see what you're saying. Have any of these companies ever had an original idea?

 

[feynoob]

 

[Swift_Star]

Sony PlayStation started out as a Super Nintendo

I see what you're saying. Have any of these companies ever had an original idea?

That's not the point.
It's not about being original, it's about gobbling the competition

 

[ReBurn]

That's not the point.
It's not about being original, it's about gobbling the competition

 

[Swift_Star]

Well… it was… have Sony bought Nintendo?
Your gif doesn't make any sense.

 

[ReBurn]

Well… it was… have Sony bought Nintendo?
Your gif doesn't make any sense.

The assertion that Microsoft just slapped a new label on Groove Networks and called it Azure and that they slapped a new label on Skype and called it Teams is absurd on it's face as well. Yet you have no problem just lapping that up. The only accurate thing in the current "Microsoft just gobbles up the competition and never made anything by themselves ever" narrative you guys are circle jerking about is Microsoft To Do.

I guess I could have just said "debunked" and refused to explain. But it's just too tempting to see all of the specious connections being thrown around.

 

[DarkMage619]

When somebody asks where a quote is from they obviously want to know who the source is. The fact that ign also read the quote somewhere and put it in their article doesn't mean that's where the quote is from. You might as well put "loo stall door gas station 6" because somebody might have written it there too.

And of course it matters, Brad Smith, vice chairman of MS is obviously playing the same dumb self deprecation game for regulators by not being very truthful with the numbers.

He is not the one claiming that Nintendo who has been in the video game industry since the 80s is no longer a competitor. If anyone is playing dumb is people that fail to recognize there are 3 video game consoles on the market right now and Xbox has sold less than the other two. It is complete nonsense to define the market the way the FTC and CMA have so Brad Smith's numbers are hardly the biggest issue here.

It's not meager depending on what submarkets we're referring to. If you are including Apple and Google in mobile then yeah but if not then it's pretty big. That supposed 70/30 split becomes 50/50 prior to the acquisition.

Imagine the mental gymnastics to get MS up to 50/50 split in the video game industry. At that point you should take out PlayStation since they are in the home VR market and also not competing with MS. Then we truly have a monopoly and should be able to argue that MS should be broken up to end it! Foolishness.

It does depend on what numbers are being used, which should be a real treat for all of us when this thing goes to trial. But if we look at 2021 global market share (we'll use a standard report for argument's sake):

https://www.ampereanalysis.com/insight/console-market-reaches-new-heights-with-growth-to-60-billion

• Sony: 46%
• Nintendo: 29%
• Microsoft: 25%

--it becomes a little harder of a case to make.

Also, when Sony is called to testify, I'd expect nothing less than trial by fire by Microsoft's lawyers. The whole thing is gonna get ugly.

And they said console wars were over.

The numbers are truly incredible. MS can't be the 3rd place 'loser' in gaming AND a monopoly at the same time. The political nature of the FTC's claims are pretty obvious.

 

[feynoob]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...&utm_term=221215&utm_campaign=author_22796872

Khan has drawn criticism from the business world and its supporters. Her Republican commissioners have accused her of withholding information, jettisoning the FTC's prior norms of bipartisanship and collegiality. The US Chamber of Commerce, which has called out the FTC for creating a "black-box environment" for business, sued the agency this summer for failing to make public documents about its voting procedures and communications with international regulators.

House Republicans have indicated they plan to ratchet up scrutiny of Khan after they take control of the chamber in January, with the Judiciary Committee's top GOP member, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, accusing her of pursuing a "radical, anti-free-market agenda."

Agency morale is at an all-time low after years in which the FTC was ranked as among the top places to work in the federal government. Employees have complained about Khan's lack of communication and decisions that move forward without staff input. In an employee survey that took place from May to July of this year, only 44% of the staff reported having a high level of respect for FTC leaders, while 32% said they plan to leave the agency within the year, according to a person who viewed the numbers but wasn't authorized to discuss the survey results because they aren't yet public.

"Our senior leadership takes the results of the survey seriously and is dedicated to creating an agency environment that best facilitates the meaningful work staff do on behalf of the American people," says Elizabeth Wilkins, who's serving as chief of staff on an interim basis.

The Microsoft-Activision complaint shouldn't have come as a surprise, considering it involves digital platforms, the tech industry and vertical integration, all areas Khan has said require heightened scrutiny, says Barry Nigro, an antitrust lawyer at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

"If they win, it will be a huge win," says Nigro, who was a senior DOJ official involved in the failed AT&T-Time Warner challenge. "If they lose, I think what it means is they are going to take more shots. They are trying to change the law. They may have to file and litigate a number of cases before they start to get traction."

 

[feynoob]

 

[Pelta88]

People forget that Microsoft's first idea in the gaming space was to buy Nintendo. They literally had a meeting where they proposed the idea and Nintendo CEO's laughed them out of the conference room.

Microsoft have proved over two decades + that they're ghastly at studio management. That's my biggest concern. Sony will still compete with relative ease imo.

 

[feynoob]

People forget that Microsoft's first idea in the gaming space was to buy Nintendo. They literally had a meeting where they proposed the idea and Nintendo CEO's laughed them out of the conference room.

Microsoft have proved over two decades + that they're ghastly at studio management. That's my biggest concern. Sony will still compete with relative ease imo.

You don't need to go that far.
Look at their windows store.
That should tell you MS is bad at managing certain business, even though they are successful as a software company.

 

[Swift_Star]

The assertion that Microsoft just slapped a new label on Groove Networks and called it Azure and that they slapped a new label on Skype and called it Teams is absurd on it's face as well. Yet you have no problem just lapping that up. The only accurate thing in the current "Microsoft just gobbles up the competition and never made anything by themselves ever" narrative you guys are circle jerking about is Microsoft To Do.

I guess I could have just said "debunked" and refused to explain. But it's just too tempting to see all of the specious connections being thrown around.

He's talking about stuff MS bought. Sorry not the same thing.
And whether you like it or not, this is what MS do.

 

[adamsapple]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...&utm_term=221215&utm_campaign=author_22796872

The FTC is imploding within .. why am I not surprised.

Lina really is going for a scorched earth approach.

 

[Three]

He is not the one claiming that Nintendo who has been in the video game industry since the 80s is no longer a competitor.

Have you looked at his numbers? Yes he is.

Imagine the mental gymnastics to get MS up to 50/50 split in the video game industry. At that point you should take out PlayStation since they are in the home VR market and also not competing with MS. Then we truly have a monopoly and should be able to argue that MS should be broken up to end it! Foolishness.

Imagine the mental gymnastics when MS themselves say they have 30% and Sony 70% of the market globally and me saying the FTC would look at the US market with a closer to 50/50 split to then try and drag Nintendo back into this. Do you know how to count to 100?

 

[drganon]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...&utm_term=221215&utm_campaign=author_22796872

Translation: The business world is upset the ftc isn't just rubber stamping everything like they used to.

 

[Swift_Star]

The FTC is imploding within .. why am I not surprised.

Lina really is going for a scorched earth approach.

That's not what the article is about at all, though?

 

[adamsapple]

That's not what the article is about at all, though?

Which part ?

The FTC's state ?

- Sued by chamber of commerce, has a bad track record of legal cases in recent times
- Will be under extra scrutiny by House Republicans when they take over in a couple of weeks
- Morale is at an all time low
- Almost 1/3rd of staff are saying they'll leave within the year

Lina Khan's strategy ?

Her continued litigation strategy against any and all big tech is not a new or surprising thing.

 

[Aguero9320]

Then again, a move like this could win the FTC the hearts and minds of consumers, who will look at a big company trying to get bigger and automatically think "that's bad."

This is a massive stretch IMO. The general population of consumers couldn't give a shit, and won't even know it's happening.

I'm also not sure it's true that even consumers who are paying attention would think a big company trying to get bigger is bad - they're more likely to fail to understand why anyone has the right to stop them. I'm far from a die hard capitalist, but even I can't see any valid reason to oppose this.

 

[feynoob]

I think this video pretty much sums up this thread.


we are all going circles on stupid topic.

 

[Thirty7ven]

The FTC is imploding within .. why am I not surprised.

Lina really is going for a scorched earth approach.

You are literally a fool if you believe these hit pieces, doubly so at a time when they are so so convenient.

 

[adamsapple]

You are literally a fool if you believe these hit pieces, doubly so at a time when they are so so convenient.

These 'hit pieces' are not new, we're just noticing them more because they are falling under our general interest now.

The Meta news has been trending all summer, as an example.

 

[feynoob]

You are literally a fool if you believe these hit pieces, doubly so at a time when they are so so convenient.

It's not a hit piece.
Lina khan is unqualified for her position.
They should have put someone that is more qualified for the agency.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Sounds like Linas heading to the chopping block.

They're already setting her up for demise.