Google worked as '1 company' with Apple, paying the iPhone maker up to $12 billion...

[schuck6566]

5 hours ago, UltraMega said:

Just adding a thought to this, think about Steam OS. When it launched, microsoft didn't do anything to try to stop it or sway PC makers away from it, but since developing an OS people actually want to use is such a monumental task, steam OS simply failed on its own. The reason microsoft dominates the PC OS market is mostly because they were literally the first software company ever. They were the first ever software company and they invented operating systems. They have such a massive head start for something that is extremely hard to do, but those factors alone don't make it a monopoly.

I agree with most of what U R saying except that I feel the reason Windows dominates is because of the ease of use. Point and click made it possible for people who had no clue about DOS to be able to use a computer. (I'm 1 of them!) My first comp was Windows 95 and I STILL remember having to find updates myself before Windows Update was introduced. Now it's just point,click,& everything can pretty much be taken care of. When I started trying ubuntu & Mint 10-12 years ago for kicks,they were still difficult if you didn't have some grounding. Then you have the cost of pc vs mac which is why windows OS is dominating most places but portable(i.e. phones/tablets)

[Diffident]

Double Fine, inXile, and Obisidan, are all game studios that previously released games for Linux prior to being purchased by Microsoft.  Double Fine is still working on Pychonauts 3 but it's believed that this will be the last game for Linux, if it isn't canceled like the Linux version of We Happy Few was canceled after Compulsion Games purchase by Microsoft.  InXile's Linux release of Wasteland 3 has been delayed with an unknown release date.  In the past it usually leads to cancellation, but Wasteland 3 is being published by Deep Silver,  not Microsoft.

 

Then there is this

Microsoft first-party games will now remain exclusive to Microsoft’s platforms

 

Quote

Microsoft’s general manager of games marketing Aaron Greenberg has clarified Microsoft’s stance on first-party exclusivity.

 

Going forward, all of our internal studios, and the new studios we’ve added, will be focused on making games for our platforms and we have no plans to expand our exclusive first-party games to any other consoles,”

 

Microsoft isn't the first software company and it didn't invent the operating system.  For one, Apple has been making PC's longer than Microsoft has been releasing OS's and UNIX is older than Microsoft is.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Diffident

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, Diffident said:

Double Fine, inXile, and Obisidan, are all game studios that previously released games for Linux prior to being purchased by Microsoft.  Double Fine is still working on Pychonauts 3 but it's believed that this will be the last game for Linux, if it isn't canceled like the Linux version of We Happy Few was canceled after Compulsion Games purchase by Microsoft.  InXile's Linux release of Wasteland 3 has been delayed with an unknown release date.  In the past it usually leads to cancellation, but Wasteland 3 is being published by Deep Silver,  not Microsoft.

 

Then there is this

Microsoft first-party games will now remain exclusive to Microsoft’s platforms

 

 

Microsoft isn't the first software company and it didn't invent the operating system.  For one, Apple has been making PC's longer than Microsoft has been releasing OS's and UNIX is older than Microsoft is.

First consumer OS. 

 

So a list of games that didn't do well in their own right might not come to linux now? Wow call the DOJ. 

 

Your argument is pretty weak. Clearly Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong here. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by UltraMega

[schuck6566]

8 hours ago, Diffident said:

"Microsoft’s general manager of games marketing Aaron Greenberg has clarified Microsoft’s stance on first-party exclusivity.

 

Going forward, all of our internal studios, and the new studios we’ve added, will be focused on making games for our platforms and we have no plans to expand our exclusive first-party games to any other consoles,”

Again,look @ Sony's gaming division.They purchased Naughty Dog,when was the last time you were able to play an Uncharted game on PC or xbox? Oh,wait,you can if you stream on pc using PLAYSTATION NOW. Again,proprietary software becoming involved. In other words,Microsoft's doing the same thing others have already done.

Edited October 26, 2020 by schuck6566

[W95CIH]

A free Os doesn't make Microshafts monopoly on the PC/desktop/laptop any less real...

 

Microsoft gets windows on OEM machines, This is how they have such a huge percentage of desktops. People like us on this forum build our own Pc's. The overwhelming majority get theirs already made, with software included. How does that happen? I am sure they don't just do it for fun.

 

Google search engine gets such a huge boost in a similar fashion with google being the default search on many platforms including their own OS. How they get the default options by making deals, okay good for them. However, once big enough they can do it by sheer force.

 

Again without going to heavy into political theater i suspect many of these big corps have skirted anti-trust lawsuits for years by simply working backdoor/lobbying/etc.. with administrations. Then even if something pops up like this one in the OP. It takes a long time to actually make it to court, at which could be buried after another administration takes over with favor. Even if it makes it to a settlement again, its weak sauce fines. Easily absorbed and some"pretend" adjustments to make it look like it was resolved.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by W95CIH

[UltraMega]

4 hours ago, W95CIH said:

A free Os doesn't make Microshafts monopoly on the PC/desktop/laptop any less real...

 

 

 

Yes, it absolutely does. 100% yes it does.

 

PC makers buy windows for their machines. Microsoft does nothing to force them to use. Your reasoning is pure nonsense. It's as if you have paid almost no attention to this topic. 

 

Google pays companies to use google. Microsoft does not pay anyone to use windows, they choose to purchase and use windows licenses from Microsoft.

Edited October 26, 2020 by UltraMega

[schuck6566]

9 hours ago, W95CIH said:

A free Os doesn't make Microshafts monopoly on the PC/desktop/laptop any less real...

 

Microsoft gets windows on OEM machines, This is how they have such a huge percentage of desktops. People like us on this forum build our own Pc's. The overwhelming majority get theirs already made, with software included. How does that happen? I am sure they don't just do it for fun.

 

Google search engine gets such a huge boost in a similar fashion with google being the default search on many platforms including their own OS. How they get the default options by making deals, okay good for them. However, once big enough they can do it by sheer force.

 

Again without going to heavy into political theater i suspect many of these big corps have skirted anti-trust lawsuits for years by simply working backdoor/lobbying/etc.. with administrations. Then even if something pops up like this one in the OP. It takes a long time to actually make it to court, at which could be buried after another administration takes over with favor. Even if it makes it to a settlement again, its weak sauce fines. Easily absorbed and some"pretend" adjustments to make it look like it was resolved.

 

 

Enough. Your whole basis for your argument is groundless because of 1 simple fact. Consumers CAN choose to have a different OS than windows on their pc @ the time of purchase. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/dells-top-developer-laptop-now-comes-with-ubuntu-20-04-out-of-the-box/

Microsoft gets paid to be put on OEM machines (there's a license fee for the oem version of windows also but is less then the consumer ver.)see the screen shot for the price comparisons on single purchase.There are LARGER discounts for lager license amounts but never to the point that MS pays the oem.

[Diffident]

On 10/26/2020 at 4:31 AM, UltraMega said:

Yes, it absolutely does. 100% yes it does.

 

PC makers buy windows for their machines. Microsoft does nothing to force them to use. Your reasoning is pure nonsense. It's as if you have paid almost no attention to this topic. 

 

Google pays companies to use google. Microsoft does not pay anyone to use windows, they choose to purchase and use windows licenses from Microsoft.

If having a free alternative available means that there can't be a monopoly, as you say, then why is Google being investigated?  No one is forced to use Google's search engine.  Search engines are free, and there are many others.

 

[schuck6566]

11 hours ago, Diffident said:

If having a free alternative available means that there can't be a monopoly, as you say, then why is Google being investigated?  No one is forced to use Google's search engine.  Search engines are free, and there are many others.

 

Because Google is PAYING to be the default search engine on the iOs devices and those devices happen to provide a large percentage of the search result based revenue that google is making. That's the Difference between your argument about free operating systems and microsoft being on oem computers and what's happening with Google.

[W95CIH]

On 10/26/2020 at 9:29 AM, schuck6566 said:

Enough. Your whole basis for your argument is groundless because of 1 simple fact. Consumers CAN choose to have a different OS than windows on their pc @ the time of purchase. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/dells-top-developer-laptop-now-comes-with-ubuntu-20-04-out-of-the-box/

Microsoft gets paid to be put on OEM machines (there's a license fee for the oem version of windows also but is less then the consumer ver.)see the screen shot for the price comparisons on single purchase.There are LARGER discounts for lager license amounts but never to the point that MS pays the oem.

 

A developer laptop can have linux on it? How is this different from you can use a different search engine than google.

 

I was speaking along the lines of Intel like backroom deals and programs to push a brand. Microsoft has ~80% marketshare on desktops which i am pretty sure includes laptops. The overwhelming majority of OEM Pc's are windows based in fact probably like in the 90%~ range on brand new builds.

 

It was already answered by Diffident

 

 

 

10 hours ago, schuck6566 said:

Because Google is PAYING to be the default search engine on the iOs devices and those devices happen to provide a large percentage of the search result based revenue that google is making. That's the Difference between your argument about free operating systems and microsoft being on oem computers and what's happening with Google.

 

You would think so based on article OP posted. It's not the whole story though.

 

See

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/google-antitrust.html

 

"In a much-anticipated lawsuit, the agency accused Google of locking up deals with giant partners like Apple and throttling competition through exclusive business contracts and agreements."

 

Many ways to "throttle competition" with contracts and agreements without being paid money(although im sure money was made just a round about way- harder to trace for lawsuit). I am sure there are many ways to be revealed if this goes through courts.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by W95CIH

[UltraMega]

5 hours ago, W95CIH said:

 

A developer laptop can have linux on it? How is this different from you can use a different search engine than google.

 

I was speaking along the lines of Intel like backroom deals and programs to push a brand. Microsoft has ~80% marketshare on desktops which i am pretty sure includes laptops. The overwhelming majority of OEM Pc's are windows based in fact probably like in the 90%~ range on brand new builds.

 

It was already answered by Diffident

 

 

 

 

You would think so based on article OP posted. It's not the whole story though.

 

See

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/google-antitrust.html

 

"In a much-anticipated lawsuit, the agency accused Google of locking up deals with giant partners like Apple and throttling competition through exclusive business contracts and agreements."

 

Many ways to "throttle competition" with contracts and agreements without being paid money(although im sure money was made just a round about way- harder to trace for lawsuit). I am sure there are many ways to be revealed if this goes through courts.

 

 

 

You and diffident are two peas in a pod. You're both repeatedly ignoring key facts to make your argument which is just going in circles. If you don't like the article in the OP, try any of the dozens or hundreds of other articles about it. Unless you go looking for one that's pushing a narrative, they all pretty much say the same thing as the OP.

 

So again, microsoft sells windows, oems but it for money. Microsoft does not pay them not to use a different OS. Google does pay other businesses to use google over the competition, and that's what makes it a crime. It's just that simple. 

 

It's ridiculous that you're trying to argue that it's not a red flag when google decides to "throttle competition". I'm sure other businesses wish they could throttle google, but they can't and that's the problem.

 

A lot of people like to hate on big companies due to some kind bias, usually a belief that the larger a business gets the more inherently evil it is. Microsoft is like a magnet for such people. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by UltraMega

[Diffident]

On 10/28/2020 at 10:38 PM, UltraMega said:

You and diffident are two peas in a pod. You're both repeatedly ignoring key facts to make your argument which is just going in circles. If you don't like the article in the OP, try any of the dozens or hundreds of other articles about it. Unless you go looking for one that's pushing a narrative, they all pretty much say the same thing as the OP.

 

So again, microsoft sells windows, oems but it for money. Microsoft does not pay them not to use a different OS. Google does pay other businesses to use google over the competition, and that's what makes it a crime. It's just that simple. 

 

It's ridiculous that you're trying to argue that it's not a red flag when google decides to "throttle competition". I'm sure other businesses wish they could throttle google, but they can't and that's the problem.

 

A lot of people like to hate on big companies due to some kind bias, usually a belief that the larger a business gets the more inherently evil it is. Microsoft is like a magnet for such people. 

 

Yes, Microsoft NO LONGER pays OEM's to preinstall their software.  That was part of the agreement they made with the DOJ during a previous anti trust case.  Now they do it with proprietary API's and bundled software to maintain the advantage they gained unfairly.

 

I haven't seen anyone argue against the action with Google.  We just want to see the same treatment given to other companies, namely Microsoft, that also throttles competition, but some people like to turn a blind eye to companies they favor.

[UltraMega]