Maybe you weren’t born when this happened, so it’s understandable that you don’t know
The magazine Business & Economic Research argued that, contrary to Friedman’s concerns, the settlement actually had little effect on Microsoft’s behavior. The fines, restrictions, and monitoring imposed were not enough to prevent it from “abusing its monopolistic power and too little to prevent it from dominating the software and operating system industry.” For that reason, Microsoft remained dominant and monopolistic after the trial, and it continued to stifle competitors and innovative technology.
UK has a relatively large gaming sector. Cloud gaming shouldn’t just be handed to Microsoft.
It’s not large in any way, and this wouldn’t “hand it to Microsoft”.
It’s a nascent industry, it’s not large, yet. And the UK has the largest gaming sector in Europe.
https://www.statista.com/forecasts/788396/leading-gaming-markets-by-revenue-in-europe
But the CMA has forced them to sell it to Ubisoft, so they won’t be able to control the pricing.
The CMA have done their job.
“Their job” being……what exactly here? Hamstringing one of the only companies that’s actually investing in cloud gaming?
Their job is to manage markets and to reduce monopolies.
One of the only companies? Netflix literally just announced a cloud gaming service. Sony has one, Nvidia has one, Amazon Luna, Shadow
But sure just let Microsoft have another monopoly…
It wouldn’t let Microsoft have a monopoly though. How would it?
Er, the same way they have with several other products?
What other products do Microsoft have a monopoly on exactly?
Maybe you weren’t born when this happened, so it’s understandable that you don’t know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
If a market regulator is slowing these cunts down, they’re doing their job.