Comment

Comment on Arch Linux and Valve Collaboration

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

Sort:hotnew top

helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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
    pivot_root@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    No, yeah. We both agree here. Zero obligation for a company to help it’s competition, and the likely reason they would ever do it is either to profit or avoid regulatory scrutiny.
    
    source