131–140 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You asked No, I did not. I stated the question which would need to be answered if you wanted to figure out if Microsoft should face an anti-trust.
Okay, then they provided a list of reasons why the answer is yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you buy an already assembled computer, not if you take the time to assemble the components yourself. And also as a small fish the higher OEM price is being subsidised by the Fortune 500 companies which buy millions of dollars worth of products from Dell etc.
If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux. Edit: The idea that OEMs only tack on the extra cost to big companies is demonstrably false. For one thing, margins per-item are always lower on bulk purchases, not higher—Fortune 500 do not pay list price on anything. For another, you can see the difference in cost…
You get Windows for free from the combo of self-assemble + torrenting + Microsoft not pursuing individual users for piracy
> > Dell XPS 13
And that is what I said, if you don't assemble the thing yourself buy the cheapest option from an OEM and then you can get Microsoft products for free if you are a wise guy.
And Microsoft tolerates it.
Won't this kill Firefox if Google gets told it cant pay browsers to put it as default? That would suck.
If their lifeline to Google is cut, maybe Mozilla will finally take us up on our offer and make it possible to pay for Firefox directly, rather than throwing money at Mozilla and simply hoping that it doesn't get misspent on nonsense side projects.
The Indian govt imposed restrictions that a payment provider in India can fulfill max 30% of the total volume of transactions in an year [1]. After that, they have to restrict themselves. This completely avoids monopoly and concentration risks. This can be done for search as well which makes sure at least 4 players stay in the market at all times. Why isn't US govt doing this? 1. https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/news…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux. Edit: The idea that OEMs only tack on the extra cost to big companies is demonstrably false. For one thing, margins per-item are always lower on bulk purchases, not higher—Fortune 500 do not pay list price on anything. For another, you can see the difference in cost…
> > If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux. You get Windows for free from the combo of self-assemble + torrenting + Microsoft not pursuing individual users for piracy > > Dell XPS 13 And that is what I said, if you don't assemble the thing yourself buy the cheapest option from an OEM and then you can get…
Antitrust laws are too reactive. We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Co…
And companies like Google have more than just "big money political influence". YouTube banned discussions on legitimate discussion of Covid and politics in the past few years, for instance.
Won't this kill Firefox if Google gets told it cant pay browsers to put it as default? That would suck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would kill the Mozilla Corporation in its current form and hopefully get us Baker's head (as least metaphorically if nothing else) but it will not necessarily be the end of the browser itself.
Who else will pay salaries to maintain Firefox? Firefox can't survive on community contributions alone.
And if Google is being split, then Chrome will also need to find a monetization strategy, opening the perspective for Mozilla.
Antitrust laws are too reactive. We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Co…
I agree that antitrust is too reactive, especially in tech, but when it hits the real world your proposed solution would just lead to a new Byzantine maze like our current tax code. We'd get a whole new industry built up around helping corporations to technically stay under the thresholds by exploiting loopholes (and another industry for lobbying for those loopholes to be expanded).
The Indian govt imposed restrictions that a payment provider in India can fulfill max 30% of the total volume of transactions in an year [1]. After that, they have to restrict themselves. This completely avoids monopoly and concentration risks. This can be done for search as well which makes sure at least 4 players stay in the market at all times. Why isn't US govt doing this? 1. https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/news…
Why isn't the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, ... doing this? Because it's a pretty strong form of controlled economy that distorts the market.
How would this work for search engines? Would you force people to use a different search engine than the one they want? (e.g. they type Google.com and end up redirected to Bing.com) ; or somehow just funnel revenue to other companies... then who gets to decide which companies this gets funneled to?
Anti-trust is about preventing anti-competitive tactics, but the scheme you is ironically anti-competitive: it artificially inflates usage of other services even if they don't provide an equal/superior service, with consumers paying the price.
[disclaimer: I work at Google, so likely biased]