291–300 of 808 posts
Why are the tying laws not enforced in the US, or Canada, or the many other jurisdictions where it's illegal for a monopoly to tie products together; and why does it not apply to the tying of Word and Excel or other apps in the Office suite that use to be sold independently and complete with independent products (Lotus 123, Wordperfect)
Regulatory capture and legalized corruption aka "lobbying".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can still do that, the folder is at: %appdata%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup I have a few sshfs[1] mounts there. [1] https://github.com/winfsp/sshfs-win
I tried that path back then but it still didn't work for me - no program I tried to put there incl Windows ones was able to launch at the login. I had just entries in the task manager's startup page. Maybe something changed in 11 - dunno
Microsoft does not screw around with backwards compatibility. There are multiple ways to start applications on launch now, including the user or public user startup folder, registry entries, and via scheduled tasks.
What's the difference between anti-competitive bundling, and developing seamless integrated experiences? If this is anti-competitive, is it anti-competitive for Apple to bundle music features/up-sell into the iOS UI, or provide an interface for headphones that no other manufacturer can integrate with?
> What's the difference between anti-competitive bundling, and developing seamless integrated experiences? The availability of APIs for third-party developers to create a similar competing experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While they offer it they don’t hand it to you for free just because you bought their iCloud storage. The issue here seems to be aimed squarely at slack and the like which have been in-theory pushed out of the market by teams. Of course most of us know that’s unfortunate because if they actually used teams for a little they wouldn’t use it even if it was bundled (probably why MS is trying to stick it everywhere).
I thought the issue was that it comes installed by default. Like the old “Microsoft installed a browser to kill netscape” brawl in America.
I just don’t get the EU’s overzealous regulations. Who is being hurt by Teams? Slack/Discord/Zoom? I doubt any major companies are using Teams just because it’s installed. They may be using it because it’s part of the Office Suite, but shouldn’t they be allowed to bundle that? Should Adobe not be able to bundle everything in Creative Cloud? It just seems so arbitrary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's the difference between anti-competitive bundling, and developing seamless integrated experiences? The availability of APIs for third-party developers to create a similar competing experience.
There is one, you can add all sorts of third party add-ons to Teams.
Government should just require open communication protocols/file formats, if a competitor is willing to host the same data at cost. Client applications should compete on their individual merits, not coast on protocol lock-in. Would WhatsApp or YouTube have as many users if others could build clients for the same data? (PII etc notwithstanding) Protocols compete on the merits of the protocol, clients compete on the me…
Doing this also puts them at the mercy of whether or not client applications are willing to support their new functionality. Maybe YouTube wants clients to adopt some feature, but a powerful client application doesn't like that feature and so won't support it.
The protocol/platform lock-in is a problem, but preserving companies' ability to iterate quickly on features is also very important.
If you "just want chat" but are required to use Teams at work, you might try pidgin[1] with the MS Teams plugin[2]. The former can be installed via scoop and therefore does not require admin priveleges to install. This thing still works, and works better than ever, with plugin for modern chat services available. 1: https://www.pidgin.im/ 2: https://github.com/EionRobb/purple-teams
Government should just require open communication protocols/file formats, if a competitor is willing to host the same data at cost. Client applications should compete on their individual merits, not coast on protocol lock-in. Would WhatsApp or YouTube have as many users if others could build clients for the same data? (PII etc notwithstanding) Protocols compete on the merits of the protocol, clients compete on the me…
What's the difference between anti-competitive bundling, and developing seamless integrated experiences? If this is anti-competitive, is it anti-competitive for Apple to bundle music features/up-sell into the iOS UI, or provide an interface for headphones that no other manufacturer can integrate with?
While they offer it they don’t hand it to you for free just because you bought their iCloud storage. The issue here seems to be aimed squarely at slack and the like which have been in-theory pushed out of the market by teams. Of course most of us know that’s unfortunate because if they actually used teams for a little they wouldn’t use it even if it was bundled (probably why MS is trying to stick it everywhere).