Comment on Arch Linux and Valve Collaboration

• pivot_root@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  While I disagree with the other commenter’s approach and attitude, he/she/they are partially correct.

  There is no legal obligation for a company to fund or assist its competition, even if it holds a significant marketshare. The companies that do help their competition, like Microsoft with Apple in 1997 or Google with Mozilla today, begrugingly choose to do it so their lawyers can make the argument that they are not a monopoly because they still have competition.

  source

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If they’ve already been deemed a monopoly? Sure. That’s a response to anticompetitive behavior.

    like Microsoft with Apple in 1997

    Don’t know anything about that.

    Google with Mozilla today

    That’s funny because this is the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting. This is not helping their competition, this is paying another company hundreds of million dollars to be anticompetitive against their competition. Its the exact anticompetitive behavior that caused them to be labeled a monopoly.

    source

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      like Microsoft with Apple in 1997

      wccftech.com/microsoft-invested-150-million-in-ap…

      Google with Mozilla today

      That’s funny because this is the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting. This is not helping their competition, this is paying another company hundreds of million dollars to be anticompetitive against their competition. They paid Mozilla (and dozens of others) to be the default search engine. Its the exact anticompetitive behavior that caused them to be legally classified as a monopoly.

      Google has multiple ventures: advertising, search engine, email, web browser, cloud storage, cloud infrastructure, etc.

      I’m not saying they don’t get any other benefit from paying Mozilla. I’m saying that one of the reasons Google shovels money in their direction is to stop regulators from having a reason to take a closer look at Chrome’s dominance.

      In terms of browser engines, we have: Blink (Chromium), WebKit2 (Safari), and Gecko (Firefox). WebKit2 is exclusive to Apple devices, which leaves Blink and Gecko as the only two browser engines available on Windows and Linux. If Mozilla went bankrupt and stopped developing Gecko, Google’s Blink engine would have no competition on non-Apple platforms, which would invite some regulatory scrutiny.

      source

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Didn’t know about the MS/Apple thing, thanks.

        When it was time to sell, Microsoft pocketed a sweet $550 million, making it more than a three-times multiple.

        I hardly think this could be considered “helping” Apple.

        I’m saying that one of the reasons Google shovels money in their direction is to stop regulators from having a reason to take a closer look at Chrome’s dominance.

        I really don’t think they do. And the contracts reflect as much.

        Regardless, none of this has anything to do with my point that no companies have an obligation to help their competition, which you’ve already agreed with, so maybe I’m missing your point.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  They literally objectively, have monopolistic anti-competitive power, largely thanks to blind dick riding gamers like you.

  source

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They literally, objectively, have, monopolistic anti-competitive power

    They literally don’t.

    in literally every single western democracy you have special obligations to actually further competition

    You literally don’t.

    source