Displaying items by tag: AntiCompetitive

So, it seems that under direct questioning Microsoft has been forced to admit that cloud gaming is not as big of a deal as they have been saying it is. We have long held that their generous 10-year cloud licensing deal for cloud gaming was not an honest attempt at competition. After all cloud gaming represents a little less than 1% of the total gaming market. Now Sarah Bond has admitted that it is not a popular option and that it is most commonly used as a feature for Microsoft consoles.

Unless you have been living under a rock or just do not care about gaming at all, you have probably heard a lot about the Microsoft Activision merger/acquisition. The deal, one of the largest in history, is a monster. Microsoft wants to buy, lock, stock and barrel, the Activision Blizzard game development company for a whopping $68.7 Billion (with a “b”). The deal would give Microsoft complete control over everything Activision/Blizzard. Now for some this might not be a bad thing if you look at it from just a game perspective or if you are just a PC gamer. The problem comes when you get into how games are really developed and how game developers work with component and console makers to ensure their games work properly.

In our coverage of the Microsoft Activision/Blizzard deal we have often wondered why so many of the groups that approved the deal, and one that opposed it, focused only on cloud gaming. We saw the UK say that the deal was bad for cloud gaming while others stated that a 10-year licensing deal for cloud gaming services that Microsoft agreed to made everything all better. As we looked over the approvals and oppositions this odd focus on what represents less than 1% of the gaming market seemed so out of place that started to feel that the opposition was just a token resistance and the deal (which is a bad thing) was just going to get rubber stamped.

After Google talked about their response to Apple requiring user acceptance for cross app tracking on mobile devices, the internet sort of exploded with different articles about the pros and cons of each. We wrote about this 2 days ago and gave out thoughts on both solutions. You can read the full article, or just read on for the summation. In short, Apple requiring a user to explicitly allow an app to perform cross tracking and data collection is better than Google’s current plan to collect everything and allow controlled access to the data via API. Google’s plan has even brought up the specter of anti-competition laws as they would literally control all the data on a mobile device. Yes, it is that bad.

Ok, so I have this truck that I designed it is about 20 feet long and a little over 10 feet tall. The truck weighs 4 tons and comes only in black. I want to sue you because you built a sub-compact car that has four tires. This is the equivalent of what the “High” court in Germany has done by banning the Galaxy Tab 7.7 claiming that it resembles the iPad. The court’s reasons? Well they seem to think that the Tab 7.7 has sides and a back that looks like the iPad which makes it an infringing product and warrants a complete ban on the product throughout the European Union. Makes sense right?

Google has agreed to settle with the FTC over accusations that they bypassed security features in Safari to track users’ internet habits. Although Google often comments that they maintain the highest privacy and security standards for its users they have been repeatedly in the news for violations of privacy. Let’s face it, Google wants and needs data they really do not care so much about how they get it as long as they do. They have been in trouble over street view, Google Maps, Google Docs, Chrome, and now for tracking people when they specifically use features to prevent them from being tracked.

We have written more than our share of articles showing the decline of Apple as a major player in the market. We would never go so far as to say that we are predicting the “death of Apple” like so many analysts do about the PC on a monthly basis. The market needs both Apple and Microsoft to thrive (and really both are “PCs”). What we are talking about is the massive popularity of Apple mobile products will continue to decline as their rivals begin to bring faster and more compelling technology to the market. Right now Apple’s biggest method of competition is the law suit which they wield around the globe to prevent competitors from releasing their designs (all in the name of protecting IP).

Have you ever wondered how Apple does it? I mean how they really get the best information. Those low prices and just seem to be on top of things so well. Many have said that Steve Jobs just has his finger on the pulse of today’s computer consumers.  Now, I will grant that Steve is a marketing genius but there has to be something else. One of these things was the former inclusion of Google CEO Eric Schmidt on Apple’s board (until an obvious conflict of interest came up) this gave Apple some amazing information into consumer wants and trends (after all Google is in the business of selling ads and collects a ton of data for this purpose).  But we have always had a feeling that there was something else going on behind the scenes.