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

61–70 of 90 posts

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

#61

Post by oblio »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #57
0dayz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governm…

> 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.

The French citizens will very likely vote in someone that gives them more of what they want and need.

How do I get Microsoft to stop polluting rivers (made up example)?

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

#62

Post by prmoustache »

alibarber wrote: post #33
b800h wrote: post #4

Pretty 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…

It is blackmail, plain and simple.

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

#64

Post by hulitu »

rvba wrote: post #8
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.

I dont want a microsoft account on my private computer

> I dont want a microsoft account on my private computer

It is not _your_ private computer. You only bought a _right to use it_ in exchange for your data. Big brother will be very upset if you don't comply.

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

#65

Post by hulitu »

Woodi wrote: post #15

MS is blackmailing a gov. UK in that case. Proofs MS is way too big - should be a lot smaller, 5-6 times ? Thank you UK ! Edit: Wait, I wasn't thinking there. 5-6 times ?? Let's count: os, cloud, aps, games and games hardwere - that 4 - 5 without improving competition in any of that domains ! 8 - 15 is resonable number then ;) But, for sure, cloud, os and apps should be separated.

> MS is blackmailing a gov. UK in that case.

Standard practice for MS. And if this does not work there is always lobbying and corruption as a plan B.

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

#66

Post by hulitu »

johneth wrote: post #42
andybak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from when it is actually about Brexit.

It's not, in this case.

> It's not, in this case.

It is, unfortunately. If Britain was still part of the EU, MS only had to bribe the EU commision, which would have been way easiear.

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

#67

Post by Arnt »

anonyfox wrote: post #40
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…

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!

Well, if a merger is proposed, that's because management has a credible argument that it's a boost for the two companies involved. Say 1%. If one of those is a >$100B company, then that's a $1B boost for the overall economy.

If you assume that a $1B boost for the economy is an argument in favour, then all big mergers are supported by credible arguments. (Which may turn out to be wrong in hindsight, of course, but that hardly affects their credibility at the time.)

This all sounds like an RAA to me: That way of looking at big mergers leads to regarding all of them as good, which is an absurd conclusion, therefore it is an absurd view.

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

#68

Post by BulgarianIdiot »

pjc50 wrote: post #60
BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Oh, really. Who defines law?

If you're convinced, for some silly reason, that you live in a legit republic, I recommend researching how a banana republic operates, or say Russia, which is also a democracy & a republic on paper, and learn how every single procedure and institution is subverted and behind the decorum, the rulers are doing whatever they want, basically.

And once you do this... look back to your country with new eyes, and you'll be shocked. It's the same thing. But with more make-up on.

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

#69

Post by BulgarianIdiot »

oblio wrote: post #59
BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh yes it, they have elections and everything. "But it's just superficial, not real". Well, let's look at France now. People elected someone, and he flipped on them, and their protested. What's the end result, in this democracy? President 1, people 0.

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

#70

Post by BulgarianIdiot »

bmacho wrote: post #56
BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

We're not discussing a "both ways" situation here. The premise was that big companies should be broken down, while countries should be kept monolithic, strictly overpowering them.

I'm asking... prove to me that governments vs corporations are a kind of conflict where governments are always correct. Because if they ARE NOT... then the idea "we must break up any company before it can even talk to us" is bullshit, isn't it?

Post reply on HN