Large Company does something illegal, profits immensely (or else ensures a competitor doesn't profit).
Governments step in, punish Large Company with a huge fine.
Large Company still gets to reap the benefits of what it did, because the competitor is defeated, or because the indirect benefits of it's actions is worth more than the cost of the governmental fine.
Large Company lays low for a few years.
Large Company does something else illegal.

This is oversimplifying that case quite a bit, and despite the cases findings it's been hotly disputed by economists. Putting aside that a large cornerstone of the case was that internet speeds at the time were prohibitively slow to download another web browser/application, which is no longer the case.

The problem is that you are assuming that monopolies are illegal, which is false. Abusing monopoly power is illegal, but there are many monopolies in the US. Local power companies are a good example.

In this case Microsoft is giving away a product that consumers want included in their operating system for free. They are not disallowing others to be installed. US Anti-trust law is designed to protect consumers from monopolies, not to protect businesses from them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

The purpose of the Act was, to quote Sherman:
"To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer"[/quote]

The US supreme court says this on the Sherman Antitrust Act

"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.[7] This focus of U.S. competition law, on protection of competition rather than competitors, is not necessarily the only possible focus or purpose of competition law. For example, it has also been said that competition law in the European Union (EU) tends to protect the competitors in the marketplace, even at the expense of market efficiencies and consumers."[/quote]

you are talking about the microsoft PL license. IE is multi-licensed, the EULA that comes with it for windows only show the PL license because that are the one you use on windows. if you have ubunto, search synaptic for Internet Explorer. last time I checked, it was there, published by microsoft.

There is no internet explorer package in Ubuntu, There is the IEs4Linux(not published by Microsoft, it is a third party wine script which lets you install IE versions up to 7) package in the universe repository but that requires a valid Windows license for each machine you use it on. (It is up to the user to ensure compliance)

If Windows 9 becomes Metro-only how will that affect software like Steam? Doesn't that pretty much forcefully remove them from competition altogether?

If Windows 9 becomes Metro-only how will that affect software like Steam? Doesn't that pretty much forcefully remove them from competition altogether?

no, they will just adapt. period.

screw this shit, we already stoped in time because of this fear of change.

I admire the attitude microsoft risky they are taking to change the core of their system. Windows 8 is faster, more intuitive and more fun to use. steam is slow and ugly. I want that to change. I want that interface to be perfected. Valve will only do this if required.

If Windows 9 becomes Metro-only how will that affect software like Steam? Doesn't that pretty much forcefully remove them from competition altogether?

You really think Microsoft is going to kill off legacy app support for their primary OS? That would likely be the one thing they could do to give up significant desktop market share.

[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1344971098' post='4969569']
They already have been offering something better than Microsoft. Microsoft has already had digital stores available that failed, because Microsoft wasn't offering something better. So instead of offering better quality (competition), Microsoft abuses it's power in an illegal way (product tying).

if they already offer something better, then don't complain.[/quote]
Have you read the thread? I'm not complaining that Microsoft is offering something worse or better, I'm complaining that they are abusing their position in a questionably legal way.

My complaint is: "Steam, and other companies, are offering better products. Microsoft can't compete in quality, because all their attempts failed. Instead of competing, they are abusing their position as the platform holder to gain the lion's share of customers, which harms competition instead of helping it."

I said, "Steam offers a better product, Microsoft is doing something that I think is borderline illegal according to the laws of this country, and harmful to the developers and consumers (and I explained why I think that)".
You said: "It benefits developers, stop complaining, Steam just needs to make a better product."
I said: "Steam already has a better product."
You said: "Then stop complaining"

Clearly you don't get what I'm complaining about: They are doing something that might be illegal (there's no hard and fast laws here, because it depends on the size of the company and is open to the interpretations of judges) to reduce competition, because they thus far hasn't been able to compete through quality.

there's no abuse of power here, just a app store. just because their system is the most used they don't have the rights to create a store and ship it on the system?[/quote]Yes. Just because they control the vast vast majority of the market, their actions have a much greater effect on the market, and the government has special regulations for companies with that much sway.

[the microsoft lawsuit was because microsoft have took action to ensure that netscape won't function properly on windows. that is unfair competition.[/quote]
That wasn't the only reason for the lawsuit. Another reason was the bundling of IE with Windows itself, not just the API that favored Internet Explorer.

steam whants to compete? make exclusivity deals, maintain better prices, maintain it's promotions.[/quote]
Steam has been competing, they have had the best prices and the best promotions (and innovation). If Microsoft's Windows Store takes the consumers anyway, despite Steam being better in every way, then that means that competition through quality, pricing, and promotion, is pointless because the customers are all using the Windows Store - thus harming the competition, not helping it.

This is my whole point. Steam is very competitive, through the normal methods of competition, and they are rightly benefiting from it. If Microsoft comes along and takes the consumers without better pricing, promotions, innovation, and quality of service, then it makes Steam's and Origin's and every other store's competition pointless.

as for the website for your games, how many games for iOS or android have websites? you don't need it. it's a plus, but you don't need it unless you are making a AAA game.[/quote]
But your argument was, "If you are on the Windows Store, you save the cost of having to make a website". That's not true. You don't need a website, but being on the Windows Store doesn't save the cost of a website anymore than the app store or Steam does.

someone said the Xbox live is only used because it's the only option, well, i know (as in "i see every day and chat with") at least 10 people that choose XBox insted of PS3 just because of the live.[/quote]
You're mixing two different things. XBox Live (as in the entire online system) contains Xbox Live Arcade (the digital store). If another company had a digital store on the XBox 360, to compete with XBox Live Arcade it'd have to offer: Better prices, more/better games, better promotions, and better interfaces and features... which would in turn force XBox Live Arcade to upgrade itself, and the other store would upgrade itself, creating better stores overall for the consumer.

Steam has a much unfair competition and doesn't complain. they compete with pirates and they are winning.[/quote]
That is a whole conversation in itself, and isn't really relevant to the current discussion.

i don't understand any of you, it's just unfair competition because it's microsoft. and don't start again with market shares, because in any other industry, this doesn't matter.[/quote]In every other industry competition does matter. In some other industries there isn't competition, but that doesn't mean competition wouldn't improve things.
Competition almost always improves things for the consumer, if the government A) Doesn't intrude on a regular basis B) Does get involved when a company steps across the line C) Encourages (through tax breaks) standardization and cross-compatibility.

Companies need to be large enough that economies of scale cut the cost, but not so large that they push out all the competition and stop innovating.
(I'm neither big business nor big government nor communistic )

[hr]

Putting aside that a large cornerstone of the case was that internet speeds at the time were prohibitively slow to download another web browser/application, which is no longer the case.

That's a good point. On the other hand, now we have things like this:


And then the actual installation and patching time for Steam, and not to mention having to know it even exists.

The problem is that you are assuming that monopolies are illegal, which is false. Abusing monopoly power is illegal, but there are many monopolies in the US. Local power companies are a good example[/quote]
I know monopolies aren't illegal. Microsoft is a monopoly (maybe less so now, with Google and Apple catching up). Microsoft bundling IE with Windows was (possibly!) an abuse of that monopoly. Microsoft bundling Windows Store with Windows is (possibly! maybe! debatably!) an abuse of that monopoly - it's whether or not it actually is an abuse of power and position that I'm arguing about. I most likely am wrong, and hopefully it won't crush the higher-quality competitors... but if I'm going to talk about it with other intelligent developers on this forum, I'd rather do so before the competition gets crushed or fails to be crushed, so I can at least have bragging rights if I'm correct.

US Anti-trust law is designed to protect consumers from monopolies, not to protect businesses from them.[/quote]
Interesting, I didn't know that - I thought it was meant for both.

That is entirely Steam's fault. All they have to do is get a countersigned certificate for their installer and that goes away. Basically that's saying that a company has to prove who they are through a CA in order to bypass the security warning. I'm not seeing a problem with this as it's much better than what OSX has done in Mountain Lion.



Notice there is nothing which tells you how to change your security settings and by default there is no option to override this dialog.

That is entirely Steam's fault. All they have to do is get a countersigned certificate for their installer and that goes away. Basically that's saying that a company has to prove who they are through a CA in order to bypass the security warning.

Ah, pardon my ignorance - I didn't realize there was a way for Valve to make that warning go away.

Companies need to be large enough that economies of scale cut the cost, but not so large that they push out all the competition and stop innovating.
(I'm neither big business nor big government nor communistic)

[...]

I know monopolies aren't illegal. Microsoft is a monopoly (maybe less so now, with Google and Apple catching up). Microsoft bundling IE with Windows was (possibly!) an abuse of that monopoly. Microsoft bundling Windows Store with Windows is (possibly! maybe! debatably!) an abuse of that monopoly - it's whether or not it actually is an abuse of power and position that I'm arguing about.

Good enough way to remember it, I suppose. I use Linux, or at least I like to, and this whole app store debate is directing my eyes towards every distro's equivalent "Software Center" and underlying management system, whether it's apt-get or portage or rpm or whatever.

Sure, I could knowingly compile and install a program without using apt-get on Ubuntu. But why would I want to do that, if the very same program is available there? But for argument's sake, I still could do it.

Maybe, just maybe this is apples to oranges, so to speak, but I can't imagine having such an app store thing pre-installed and not using it, unless it just wasn't very good. (edit: And I do remember having that Games for Windows Live thing on my desktop a while back. Never used it, installed Steam instead. ;) )

Sorry but i won't botter in quoting every single part of your post i want to reply, so i will only quote this one, but reply to it as a whole.

And then the actual installation and patching time for Steam, and not to mention having to know it even exists.

This is Valve fault. I'm a software developer, so i know they can speed up this crap if they whant. what you don't realise is that Steam has no competition. Origin a competition to Steam? how many people like Origin? I've seen many complaining and none defending. in this thread, how many times steam was mentioned and how many times origin was? Steam already has no competition.

I think Steam's GUI is just crap. yes, crap. it's painfull slow. they can speed that but they don't care.

you said Microsoft has 90% of the market share, but how many of those costumers are gammers? and how many of those gammers are already Steam custumers?

And why you care? if microsoft show you better deals and don't impose the burden of having to run steam on the background while i play, then valve better catch up.

it's not unfair competition, it's competition. Games for Windows Live has been there for ages. if it doesn't offer nothing better, it won't be used by gammers, but the real magic of this store is other software. all of that software in one place will really make my life and the life of many other people much easier.