| ▲ | duringmath 4 days ago |
| The former Microsoft lawyer leading this prosecution is doing Microsoft's bidding. |
|
| ▲ | sverhagen 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Wouldn't Microsoft be scared to suffer the same faith, if this were to really happen? |
| |
| ▲ | duringmath 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Microsoft doesn't want Google to control the codebase Edge is based on and doesn't want anyone to counter the MSFT + OpenAI partnership, and the DOJ is trying to hand them their wishes.
Hopefully the judge rejects this overreach and rules on lawsuit scope. | | |
| ▲ | Grimblewald 4 days ago | parent [-] | | preferable would be preventing google+anthropic but also breaking up ms + openai | | |
| ▲ | inlined 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Doubt that’s on the table unless Microsoft is also sued. Without a joint ruling this wouldn’t be balanced | | | |
| ▲ | duringmath 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ideally the feds would stay out of it and let the market do its thing. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 4 days ago | parent [-] | | As someone who remembers a time before Google, no. Letting "the market do its thing" only works until a few companies accumulate enough power to monopolize the market. The last two decades have seen being the next Google transformed into being acquired by Google, which has been to the detriment of everyone. | | |
| ▲ | adrr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I remember the time before google. We were all stuck IE with no competitive browsers and everyone was using Windows machines. Now we have three browsers and multiple platforms. I just bought a Chromebook plus, that can run linux apps but is easy enough for my kid to use. My wife uses windows laptop and I use a mac. We have Amazon Echos through out the house. We have 4 major players in the tech space instead of one. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Netscape? IE didn't become dominant until 2000+. And those four players are more of a cartel than competitors, having agreed to mostly stay out of each other's ways. The primary overlapping markets between them are consumptive devices and cloud services -- which I presume they're all in because they consider it strategically important enough to their other businesses to incinerate money. | | |
| ▲ | adrr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Apple and Google makes phones. All of them make tablets. Microsoft and Apple make laptops. All but Apple sell cloud computing. Google, Apple and Microsoft have office suites. Apple, Amazon and Google offer paid streaming platforms. Amazon, Apple and Google All offer smart assistants. I can keep going with things like game platforms, consumer storage,streaming music. Failing to see how they stay out of each other's way or have agreements with each other. Apple and Google literally give away their office apps which is the bread butter of Microsoft, | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Apple and Google don't compete on phones, because they've each intentionally built incompatible ecosystems. See earlier comment about consumer devices. Office suites have Google sharing an MS Office-compatible suite they purchased. Apple has MS Office on its platform. But no real competition or innovation. Who aside from Microsoft runs a gaming platform? What looks like open competition gets a lot narrower in overlap once you look at the details. Which is exactly what you'd expect, if you allowed companies to get too big and too dominant: they're not dumb, so they strategically rig the game in their favor to disadvantage new entrants, while carteling with similarly sized peers to ensure everyone mostly stays out of each other's pools. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lmm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The status quo is bad for Microsoft, anything with the potential to shake it up is worth doing. And they'd get a head start. |
|
|
| ▲ | karaterobot 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I'm sorry, you're alleging that someone who used to work for Microsoft, but doesn't anymore, is ... well, still secretly working for Microsoft? Like, he's a spy inside the DOJ, but you've figured out his clever game? I don't understand. |
| |
| ▲ | vlovich123 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A common argument is that former corporate insiders remain loyal to their former employers once in positions of authority in the government so as to obtain lucrative positions once their time in government ends. It’s also possible there are corrupt private contracts in place to entice those actions. I’m not sure why you’re being so sarcastic as it’s not a novel idea and it’s less “figured out the clever game” and more that even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution. | | |
| ▲ | vinay427 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution. This seems like a nuanced and reasonable take, but a rather generous interpretation of the GP comment. I think it’s reasonable for the parent comment to push back against a definitive statement laying an accusation with no evidence. | | |
| ▲ | vlovich123 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It’s a reasonable take meant to explain GPs statement and sentiment regardless of the underlying truth of his statement and pushing back on what I found to be unfounded sarcasm that added nothing to the conversation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | justinclift 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Interestingly, that same argument was made for Nokia and in the end seems like it was probably true in that specific case. |
|
