We need to go beyond stopping mergers. Any company which sees itself as large or powerful enough to make unveiled threats against a national economy needs to be broken up.
For ultra-large companies (e.g. any company with a market cap over $100B at the moment), default-deny should be the position for any mergers from this point - the burden of proof should be on them to show why the merge would not only be non-harmful, but actually benefit the wider economy.
Man, I came in instinctively wanting to argue the opposite point, but reading your thought in this clear way made me second guess myself. You are simply right and I have no _real_ arguments against it (maybe some ideology, but thats not useful), so I changed my mind.
I'd hazard a guess that a lot of America's soft power is through the giant companies it created. Big Pharma, Big Banks, Big Tech...
If CIA wants to tap a foreign dictator, I'm sure they can make a friendly call to some office software maker and ask for a one-off. Embargoes carry so much more pressure if there is no alternative to Made in USA. And so on.
Other countries are generally not in a position to wield this power but totally want to, or recognise the risk and pay through the nose to mitigate it. Look at France, which has built a complete domestic defense industry just to be independent of the USA.
You may argue this power is misused, and that's probably true, but in principle it is a nice-to-have for states, and thus societies, and probably the thing that keeps America birthing decacorns despite the costs.
Some kind of progressively increasing tax could possibly provide a disincentive. If it's based on turnover/sales rather than profit (to avoid creative accounting), then a merger would increase the tax burden compared to keeping two companies separate. It would also penalise the very biggest players, but maybe that would benefit the smaller companies and encourage greater market choice.
Is there a threat here, though? Even veiled, I don't see more here than "well we'll take our ball and go home", and the actual words are closer to "we and our friends will have to think harder about bringing in more balls".
An actual threat might be closer to "Nice independent nuclear deterrent you got there, be a pity if we stopped supplying security patches for Windows for Warships…"
(But I absolutely agree that any company "too big to fail" should be treated as a potential disaster waiting to happen, and broken apart accordingly; even when I happen to like them or their work, that big is too big).
True in the abstract. But between also-ran countries which get obsessed with creating their own "national champion" mega-companies, and the stable of mega-donors which you need to have a meaningful political career these days, and the win-at-any-cost culture wars...
"Furious attack" - Just goes to show that it was the right decision by the UK. EU should have done the same. I personally don't want all my games to be linked to a Microsoft account in a few years. There's already too many monopolies. It's bad enough they want to force you to use an online account for the operating system.
It's frightening how Microsoft, a company well known for decades of history of being anti consumer and shady managed to get a large vocal part of the internet to vocally defend them going for a monopoly in video game editing. As if them already having monopolies over so many major tech markets wasn't bad enough.
To me - I’m seeing this as a bit of a goading on to the EU to be sure they make the ‘correct’ choice, unlike those foolish, anti-progress, anti business Brits. Not totally sure it’ll work.
MS is blackmailing a gov. UK in that case. Proofs MS is way too big - should be a lot smaller, 5-6 times ? Thank you UK !
Edit:
Wait, I wasn't thinking there. 5-6 times ?? Let's count: os, cloud, aps, games and games hardwere - that 4 - 5 without improving competition in any of that domains ! 8 - 15 is resonable number then ;) But, for sure, cloud, os and apps should be separated.
Pretty disgusting and low attack, given the form of words used. Another reason not to buy their services, IMO. Plenty of people with budgetary authority will take note.
I was also very surprised by the language here - diplomacy seems to have gone completely out of the window and I don’t really understand what they’re trying to achieve by disparaging an entire country!
This is far worse than you’d read from a Ryanair press release - the CEO of which isn’t exactly afraid to make his true feelings known, and doesn’t have a lot of love for the UK government.
I don’t play games and don’t really have knowledge of what’s going on here, but this seems to have convinced me that the CMAs choice was correct.
This is likely a good thing. If a company is annoyed by a regulator it either means the regulator accidentally held back passionate progress the populous begged for, or that Microsoft was set to make a load of money off it.
And there's a general lack of articles lamenting this.
Content aside, this is terrible editing on BBC’s part:
> However, the regulator hit back, saying: "It is the CMA's job to do what is best for the people, businesses and economy of the UK, not merging firms with commercial interests."
> But the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said its job was not to serve the interests of merging firms.
> Mr Smith said the CMA's decision market "probably the darkest day in our four decades in Britain".
I assume they meant to say "marked" rather than "market". The editorial standards are frankly a disgrace at the BBC these days, these errors are common.
I applaud the CMA for taking a leadership role and standing up to Microsoft. Well done! The post-decision commentary by Microsoft is uncalled for and shows how truly evil and manipulative this company has become. Sore loser.
I mean, I'm not exactly a fan of brexit, but my God, playing on EU vs UK sentiments is worse than bad taste. It's exactly what is wrong with society: fuels hate for commercial reasons.
Couldn’t agree more. And I think they may have misread the room on this anyway. The impression I get from (living in) the EU is that they would rather take the more ‘pro-consumer’ side, or at least be seen to. So ‘banned in the UK’ is a low bar.
I am not in favour of monopolies and large acquisitions, as I think those are ultimately detrimental to the economy.
Regulators should take a closer look at Tencent, they have been on an acquisition spree during the last few years, with little resistance, including in the UK.
I am not sure the UK is making the best move here, strategically.
Cry moar MS. If they think the EU is a more business friendly area than the UK, then feel free to move over there. I think they'll find that the EU is less tolerant of Their monopolistic behaviour than the UK would be.
Well, if msft wants to restore confidence: day one, ALL games from ALL their studios with top notch elf/linux builds (not a few games here and there, day 42389, hardly working and supported).
Well, this is exactly the same for Sony though.
Hard truth: what sells to the people the need of current powerful hardware is nearly only video games... Namely, if you want sell powerful hardware "en masse", you want beautiful 3D games.
Roughly speaking, most people not playing video games will be fine with a risc-v mini-computer. Ok, maybe with some vector instruction or video decoding hardware.
[+] [-] Moissanite|2 years ago|reply
For ultra-large companies (e.g. any company with a market cap over $100B at the moment), default-deny should be the position for any mergers from this point - the burden of proof should be on them to show why the merge would not only be non-harmful, but actually benefit the wider economy.
[+] [-] anonyfox|2 years ago|reply
Thanks!
[+] [-] rich_sasha|2 years ago|reply
If CIA wants to tap a foreign dictator, I'm sure they can make a friendly call to some office software maker and ask for a one-off. Embargoes carry so much more pressure if there is no alternative to Made in USA. And so on.
Other countries are generally not in a position to wield this power but totally want to, or recognise the risk and pay through the nose to mitigate it. Look at France, which has built a complete domestic defense industry just to be independent of the USA.
You may argue this power is misused, and that's probably true, but in principle it is a nice-to-have for states, and thus societies, and probably the thing that keeps America birthing decacorns despite the costs.
[+] [-] ndsipa_pomu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben_w|2 years ago|reply
An actual threat might be closer to "Nice independent nuclear deterrent you got there, be a pity if we stopped supplying security patches for Windows for Warships…"
(But I absolutely agree that any company "too big to fail" should be treated as a potential disaster waiting to happen, and broken apart accordingly; even when I happen to like them or their work, that big is too big).
[+] [-] bell-cot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BulgarianIdiot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Circuitstorm513|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeroenhd|2 years ago|reply
They've started an investigation but haven't completed it yet. The same is true for the American authorities.
Just because the UK was first to finish their investigation doesn't mean other regulatory bodies don't share their opinion.
EU: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-issues-antitrust-charge-s...
USA: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-activision-blizzard-in...
[+] [-] blibble|2 years ago|reply
there's reasonable odds that they will
the UK was simply first to reveal its decision
I wonder what the petulant child Brad Smith will say then
[+] [-] Algent|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RoryH|2 years ago|reply
Bingo!
[+] [-] alibarber|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Negitivefrags|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvba|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Woodi|2 years ago|reply
Edit:
Wait, I wasn't thinking there. 5-6 times ?? Let's count: os, cloud, aps, games and games hardwere - that 4 - 5 without improving competition in any of that domains ! 8 - 15 is resonable number then ;) But, for sure, cloud, os and apps should be separated.
[+] [-] hulitu|2 years ago|reply
Standard practice for MS. And if this does not work there is always lobbying and corruption as a plan B.
[+] [-] b800h|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alibarber|2 years ago|reply
I don’t play games and don’t really have knowledge of what’s going on here, but this seems to have convinced me that the CMAs choice was correct.
[+] [-] moritonal|2 years ago|reply
And there's a general lack of articles lamenting this.
[+] [-] iflp|2 years ago|reply
> However, the regulator hit back, saying: "It is the CMA's job to do what is best for the people, businesses and economy of the UK, not merging firms with commercial interests."
> But the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said its job was not to serve the interests of merging firms.
[+] [-] lastangryman|2 years ago|reply
> Mr Smith said the CMA's decision market "probably the darkest day in our four decades in Britain".
I assume they meant to say "marked" rather than "market". The editorial standards are frankly a disgrace at the BBC these days, these errors are common.
[+] [-] red_trumpet|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tailspin2019|2 years ago|reply
The attitude on display here only goes to reinforce that this self-entitled organisation needs reigning in further.
They barely bother to hide their distain towards their own customers at this point. (See Windows 11)
The team behind the .NET ecosystem is the only part of Microsoft that I have any remaining respect for.
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tommstein|2 years ago|reply
Are you new or something?
[+] [-] ndsipa_pomu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaylinux|2 years ago|reply
They have quite some interesting virtue signaling material online too.
> "We have a collective opportunity and responsibility to create a more inclusive, equitable, sustainable, and trusted future. "
> "We are committed to support inclusive economic growth, protect fundamental rights, create a sustainable future, and earn trust."
> "We believe technology companies have a responsibility to help protect democratic processes and institutions."
It's all so predictable and tiresome.
[+] [-] throw_a_grenade|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alibarber|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AntoniusBlock|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sekh60|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stephc_int13|2 years ago|reply
Regulators should take a closer look at Tencent, they have been on an acquisition spree during the last few years, with little resistance, including in the UK.
I am not sure the UK is making the best move here, strategically.
[+] [-] johneth|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drumhead|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumballindie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saybrexitagain|2 years ago|reply
Inflation? Brexit
Living standards? Brexit
Activision merger? Brexit
1 million immigrants per year? Brexit
The cheap scapegoat for those looking to divert the attention
[+] [-] andybak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sylware|2 years ago|reply
Well, this is exactly the same for Sony though.
Hard truth: what sells to the people the need of current powerful hardware is nearly only video games... Namely, if you want sell powerful hardware "en masse", you want beautiful 3D games.
Roughly speaking, most people not playing video games will be fine with a risc-v mini-computer. Ok, maybe with some vector instruction or video decoding hardware.
[+] [-] snvzz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tpoacher|2 years ago|reply
I had an odd sense of pride when I found out the UK gov promotes open document standards on their websites.
Whenever someone gives me flak I can now say I'm conforming to national accessibility guidelines.
[+] [-] ben_w|2 years ago|reply