Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#51

Post by BulgarianIdiot »

pjc50 wrote: post #46
BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First you need to prove to me the average company is less competent and aligned with people than the average government.

Every time this subject comes up people wheel out "the only obligation a company has is to its _shareholders_". Usually when they're complaining about DEI or social obligations being imposed on them. Competence you can argue, but there is no guarantee that any company is more aligned with _the public as a whole_ than an elected government. It may turn out that they are in particular cases, but elections remain a real…

Well, I'm not wheeling out any of that. Politicians are only truly obligated to their sponsors as well, but they won't say that out loud. Does this make things better?

In truth, a government also depends on its voters, and a company also depends on its customers. But none of this what I'm talking about. I'm talking about governments implementing FORCE on corporations because they're big enough to be heard and seen and to challenge them. Is that good? Why?

Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#52

Post by ben_w »

Moissanite wrote: post #19

We 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…

Is there a threat here, though? Even veiled, I don't see more here than "well we'll take our ball and go home", and the actual words are closer to "we and our friends will have to think harder about bringing in more balls".

An actual threat might be closer to "Nice independent nuclear deterrent you got there, be a pity if we stopped supplying security patches for Windows for Warships…"

(But I absolutely agree that any company "too big to fail" should be treated as a potential disaster waiting to happen, and broken apart accordingly; even when I happen to like them or their work, that big is too big).

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#53

Post by Moissanite »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #35
Moissanite wrote: post #19

We 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.

Once I get a vote on board membership for every company operating in my country, I will happily participate in that discussion.

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#54

Post by pyrale »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #51
pjc50 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time this subject comes up people wheel out "the only obligation a company has is to its _shareholders_". Usually when they're complaining about DEI or social obligations being imposed on them. Competence you can argue, but there is no guarantee that any company is more aligned with _the public as a whole_ than an elected government. It may turn out that they are in particular cases, but elections remain a real…

Well, I'm not wheeling out any of that. Politicians are only truly obligated to their sponsors as well, but they won't say that out loud. Does this make things better? In truth, a government also depends on its voters, and a company also depends on its customers. But none of this what I'm talking about. I'm talking about governments implementing FORCE on corporations because they're big enough to be heard and seen an…

> Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

Corporations don't have a voice, and large shareholders usually get more than their fair share of attention.

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#55

Post by Moissanite »

ben_w wrote: post #52
Moissanite wrote: post #19

We 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…

Is there a threat here, though? Even veiled , I don't see more here than "well we'll take our ball and go home", and the actual words are closer to "we and our friends will have to think harder about bringing in more balls". An actual threat might be closer to "Nice independent nuclear deterrent you got there, be a pity if we stopped supplying security patches for Windows for Warships …" (But I absolutely agree that…

I think "We bring tech jobs and tax revenue, which we will take elsewhere if you're not more compliant" is hard to label as anything other than a threat - particularly in the context of trying to play off the UK against the EU. UK politicians have made hay off the idea that being free of EU bureaucracy would make the UK a more appealing environment for companies; that was always bullshit anyway, but here Microsoft are trying to use it as leverage in the court of public opinion.

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#56

Post by bmacho »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #47
MagnumOpus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he doesn't have prove anything to you. What kind of non-sequitur is that? Mergers can reduce competitiveness, and governments can be incompetent - both can be true at the same time.

It's very simple. Their argument is that no company should ever challenge a government, that if this happens, the company is too powerful and should be broken apart. Just to make this clear, in a normal democracy, anyone can challenge a government or institution, even separate individuals, as long as they have merit, legal or moral, to their claim and they can demonstrate it. The user proposes that by default all cla…

> Governments are better. But are they?

> Prove it.

Two things can be true. One can think that only the state should have hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, not people, organizations or corporations. The same person can fear the government as well, and actively oppose virtually any government control over anything. (Especially if it is spectacularly dangerous and has no benefit.)

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#57

Post by BulgarianIdiot »

0dayz wrote: post #50
BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First you need to prove to me the average company is less competent and aligned with people than the average government.

Microsoft is not an average company. And government is only as good as the people let them be. Corporations are only as good as the regulation and competition. In other word they are completely different from each other.

You used different words, but describe two entities in a very similar situation.

Except a government is larger and essentially held hostage by the two or so major incumbent parties that have settled into every developed democracy. If people want to make the situation better, what are they supposed to do, exactly?

How did the protests in France go? Citizens destroyed some private property. And that was it. The government is fine and the president is fine.

Why is Microsoft bigger and scarier than the UK government? Be specific and don't hide behind synonyms and fragmented terminology?

UK GDP is $3.131 trillion, and Microsoft's is $200 billion. You actually think Microsoft is way too big in this situation and has to be broken down so the little-wittle government is not threatened by their displeasure? Oh, God.

I'm not even talking about the fact a government has monopoly on its territory, monopoly on using force through police etc. and it has military, what does Microsoft have here that makes it scarier than the damn government, huh?

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#58

Post by pyrale »

Algent wrote: post #23
Circuitstorm513 wrote: post #7

"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.

It's frightening how Microsoft, a company well known for decades of history of being anti consumer and shady managed to get a large vocal part of the internet to vocally defend them going for a monopoly in video game editing. As if them already having monopolies over so many major tech markets wasn't bad enough.

To be honest, if a company owns at least one computer and is the target of a decision made by any european country, you'll find HNers complaining about it.

Microsoft isn't even the worst company to get defended this way, the same happened when Uber started illegal services in Europe.

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#59

Post by oblio »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #51
pjc50 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time this subject comes up people wheel out "the only obligation a company has is to its _shareholders_". Usually when they're complaining about DEI or social obligations being imposed on them. Competence you can argue, but there is no guarantee that any company is more aligned with _the public as a whole_ than an elected government. It may turn out that they are in particular cases, but elections remain a real…

Well, I'm not wheeling out any of that. Politicians are only truly obligated to their sponsors as well, but they won't say that out loud. Does this make things better? In truth, a government also depends on its voters, and a company also depends on its customers. But none of this what I'm talking about. I'm talking about governments implementing FORCE on corporations because they're big enough to be heard and seen an…

> Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

Russia is not a democracy so your premise is flawed from the start.

Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked

#60

Post by pjc50 »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #51
pjc50 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time this subject comes up people wheel out "the only obligation a company has is to its _shareholders_". Usually when they're complaining about DEI or social obligations being imposed on them. Competence you can argue, but there is no guarantee that any company is more aligned with _the public as a whole_ than an elected government. It may turn out that they are in particular cases, but elections remain a real…

Well, I'm not wheeling out any of that. Politicians are only truly obligated to their sponsors as well, but they won't say that out loud. Does this make things better? In truth, a government also depends on its voters, and a company also depends on its customers. But none of this what I'm talking about. I'm talking about governments implementing FORCE on corporations because they're big enough to be heard and seen an…

People need to distinguish between "force" and "law".

In a rule of law country, governments can't just push around companies at a whim. That's the basis of Disney vs De Santis: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-board-may-ban-disne...

Post reply on HN