Stopping the process of monopolisation is bad for business? Since when?
[deleted]
Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
31–40 of 90 posts
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#32Literally everything is about brexit.
Inflation? Brexit
Living standards? Brexit
Activision merger? Brexit
1 million immigrants per year? Brexit
The cheap scapegoat for those looking to divert the attention
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#33Pretty disgusting and low attack, given the form of words used. Another reason not to buy their services, IMO. Plenty of people with budgetary authority will take note.
I was also very surprised by the language here - diplomacy seems to have gone completely out of the window and I don’t really understand what they’re trying to achieve by disparaging an entire country!
This is far worse than you’d read from a Ryanair press release - the CEO of which isn’t exactly afraid to make his true feelings known, and doesn’t have a lot of love for the UK government.
I don’t play games and don’t really have knowledge of what’s going on here, but this seems to have convinced me that the CMAs choice was correct.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#34I applaud the CMA for taking a leadership role and standing up to Microsoft. Well done! The post-decision commentary by Microsoft is uncalled for and shows how truly evil and manipulative this company has become. Sore loser.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#35We need to go beyond stopping mergers. Any company which sees itself as large or powerful enough to make unveiled threats against a national economy needs to be broken up. For ultra-large companies (e.g. any company with a market cap over $100B at the moment), default-deny should be the position for any mergers from this point - the burden of proof should be on them to show why the merge would not only be non-harmful…
First you need to prove to me the average company is less competent and aligned with people than the average government.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#36Literally everything is about brexit. Inflation? Brexit Living standards? Brexit Activision merger? Brexit 1 million immigrants per year? Brexit The cheap scapegoat for those looking to divert the attention
Aside from when it is actually about Brexit.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#37"Furious attack" - Just goes to show that it was the right decision by the UK. EU should have done the same. I personally don't want all my games to be linked to a Microsoft account in a few years. There's already too many monopolies. It's bad enough they want to force you to use an online account for the operating system.
To me - I’m seeing this as a bit of a goading on to the EU to be sure they make the ‘correct’ choice, unlike those foolish, anti-progress, anti business Brits. Not totally sure it’ll work.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#38I can definitely see their point. Asking the government to gain and mantain such a deep insight into market dynamics is bound to fail time and time again. Private monopolies never persist for very long, any attempt to fix that non-problem via governmental interference is bound to produce opposite results.
This isn't a free market, though. Microsoft grew as big as it is by exploiting government-granted monopolies (copyright, patent). It seems entirely reasonable to me that governments should be able to rein it back in.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#39I mean, I'm not exactly a fan of brexit, but my God, playing on EU vs UK sentiments is worse than bad taste. It's exactly what is wrong with society: fuels hate for commercial reasons.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#40We need to go beyond stopping mergers. Any company which sees itself as large or powerful enough to make unveiled threats against a national economy needs to be broken up. For ultra-large companies (e.g. any company with a market cap over $100B at the moment), default-deny should be the position for any mergers from this point - the burden of proof should be on them to show why the merge would not only be non-harmful…
Man, I came in instinctively wanting to argue the opposite point, but reading your thought in this clear way made me second guess myself. You are simply right and I have no _real_ arguments against it (maybe some ideology, but thats not useful), so I changed my mind.
Thanks!