undefined | Better HN

0 pointspedrocr7y ago0 comments

In the middle of the process there was an election and the new executive didn't want to actually go after Microsoft. They then got off much easier than their misdeeds required. At one point an OS/Office breakup was in the cards and that would actually have been a major shift in the industry. It's not surprising that what was actually done didn't have that much impact.

0 comments

andrewla7y ago

My point is not whether government interference was impactful. My point is exactly that it made no difference.

Microsoft lost its position of dominance through purely market ends (in my opinion -- certainly between the US actions and the EU actions you could argue that they made a difference).

In retrospect breaking up MS between Windows and Office was not a necessary condition to breaking MS's monopoly, and so we have an excellent test case for government intervention at that scale. Not definitive, of course; MS could very well be the exception, but certainly the Justice Department's actions against Microsoft should not be used as evidence that such actions are effective.

pedrocrOP7y ago

The tech market would be much different today if they had been broken up. That they're not still the largest tech company in the world is not the same as saying they lost their monopoly somehow. They still have the same monopoly on the desktop OS and more importantly in Office and they still very aggressively maintain those monopolies. There are just other even larger markets today.

> In retrospect breaking up MS between Windows and Office was not a necessary condition to breaking MS's monopoly.

Quite the contrary. Since their monopoly is still in full force neither the meager settlement nor the market transformation were sufficient to break the monopoly. Breaking up OS/Office might have been enough but we'll never know.

andrewla7y ago

That it would be different in inarguable. I feel like I can get on board with the statement that the fact they are no longer the biggest is pretty much equivalent to saying they lost their monopoloy.

In a sense they have a monopoly -- they are the only ones selling Windows. But ... even in the desktop/laptop area they are no longer the beast that they once were. And the prevalence of mobile as a platform means that even their dominance in the desktop/laptop market doesn't mean what it once did.

In office products they have a much stronger position, but the barriers to switching are no longer what they once were. I feel like I can confidently say that Microsoft can no longer coast on their monopoly power, but must actively move forward (with things like Office365) in order to stay competitive.

Are you arguing that even now breaking up OS/Office would be a reasonable thing for the Justice department to pursue? That seems like a barely tenable position.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

andrewla7y ago

My point is not whether government interference was impactful. My point is exactly that it made no difference.

Microsoft lost its position of dominance through purely market ends (in my opinion -- certainly between the US actions and the EU actions you could argue that they made a difference).

pedrocrOP7y ago

> In retrospect breaking up MS between Windows and Office was not a necessary condition to breaking MS's monopoly.

andrewla7y ago

That it would be different in inarguable. I feel like I can get on board with the statement that the fact they are no longer the biggest is pretty much equivalent to saying they lost their monopoloy.

Are you arguing that even now breaking up OS/Office would be a reasonable thing for the Justice department to pursue? That seems like a barely tenable position.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse