• thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure why people are expecting Microsoft to act altruistically in this merger. They’re a publicly traded company that exists to create profit for their shareholders, and they’re not going to do a single thing that won’t increase their profits.

    Mergers like this are always bad for the consumer, and the FTC is betraying the citizens by letting it happen.

    • pb7280@lemmy.fucs.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mergers like this are always bad for the consumer

      This is not true. Horizontal mergers are always bad for the consumer. Vertical mergers, like this one, can either be good or bad or neither. In many other cases they have been a net benefit to consumers and actually increased competition

      No one is expecting Microsoft to act altruistically. We are expecting them to rake in more cash, especially from King, and invest that cash in games, gamepass, and actual competition to Sony and Nintendo. We are expecting them to make smart business decisions and, SHOCKER, there are smart business decisions available to them that are also beneficial to consumers

      No company is your friend. But a smart company finds ways to make money off you while still leaving you happy and content after

      • ono@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Activision Blizzard is such an awful company that I stopped playing their games, for ethical reasons. I’m no fan of Microsoft or consolidation, but at least they don’t have a habit of supporting human rights abuses. This acqisition has me considering playing (ex-)Blizzard games again.

        Vertical mergers, like this one, can either be good

        Do you have any examples?

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mergers like this are always bad for the consumer

      Microsoft’s acquisitions of Github and LinkedIn both worked out pretty well.

      Github actually has more free features now than it did before the Microsoft acquisition - they made some paid features free (like the ability to have private repos) and added a lot of new free features (like Github Actions which is built on Azure), without removing or paywalling any existing free features. Github likely wouldn’t have been able to afford that investment without Microsoft.

      • taanegl@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        They also use GitHub to hover up code and resell it as AI… and it’s only a question of time before they do a rugpull.

        Make no mistake, they bought both for access to the data and use it daily to upend other competitors.

        Remember: embrace, expand, extinguish…

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They also use GitHub to hover up code and resell it as AI

          Microsoft’s not the only company doing this. Pretty much all code-focused AI models are based on Github data.

          Remember: embrace, expand, extinguish…

          This may have been common in the 90s, but I’m not sure it’s still relevant. Do you have any examples of Microsoft doing this in the past 10 years?