Companies shouldn't ever be allowed to be so wealthy or powerful. This sort of power allows them to bypass legal regulations, squash small companies (something MS has been doing for a long time), force technology on people faster than they can react (think of the average clueless user that will just use anything MS puts on Windows), and create a true state of anti-competition (what kind of small company can compete with MS and not be bought out).
The only reason why they do exist is because the people with the money are the people with the power.
> Companies shouldn't ever be allowed to be so wealthy or powerful.
I see MS as a US gov approved monopoly. I didn't check their SEC filings, but I suspect that US gov is a number one buyer, while various EU countries combined make number two. That's a coercion to me, not software business.
I would agree with that. And if that is so, it makes it even more apparent how broken our system is. The United States after all was built on decent values but without mechanisms to safeguard the average American from the interplay and long-term effects of very advanced technology interacting with the free market economy.
I wonder if a more-organized democracy would buy them out and make them state-owned.
Terms like
- You won, Windows is very popular, we are going to buy it and open source it, no more ads, no more opt-out telemetry
- Same with Office
- Same with Github
- Maybe they can keep running Azure, since it's unpopular
- XBox and Kinect and all the hardware stuff can stay private since it's not a monopoly and not de-facto public infrastructure
I wish I could live to see government that is both good and powerful, you know
I would think so, given how important (whether we at HN like it or not) their stack has become, it's basically critical infrastructure at this point for a lot of industries.
I think I could see that happening to several companies, not just MS as well - once something gets so huge that it would be detrimental to the survival of a nation if it failed, it gets nationalized.
> - Maybe they can keep running Azure, since it's unpopular
That I'm not sure about though. Azure is unpopular with SaaS, but it's increasingly popular with non-tech enterprises, as well as basically anyone that remotely competes with Amazon. Good chance that if a company's core product isn't SaaS, they are on Azure.
There's no such thing as a large bureaucratic organization that is "good". The larger the scale, the less morality enters into the picture at all.
Making large companies state-owned wouldn't preclude them from being monopolies, it just changes who's in charge of monopoly abuse. With state-owned monopolies you end up with something more like USSR.
No, OP is right: this much concentrated power just shouldn't be allowed, period.
I disagree. The EU one of the largest and most bureaucratic organisations in the world and while they often make dumb laws - especially around technology - it's usually at least with the intent of making things better for people.
State owned monopolies really only make sense for natural monopolies (e.g. transport and communications infrastructure), and I wouldn't really count desktop operating systems as that. Windows is a monopoly due to extremely strong network effects.
That sounds like a good partial solution. Unfortunately, it's easier for governments to use tax dollars to expand, create more comfortable positions for federal civil servants, and watch the money roll in.