There is a specific difference between "not helping" (your words) and "repeatedly killing" (the quoted words). It's certainly not about being mean.
Google is under no obligation to help their competitors. When they use their competitive advantage in one market (online video) to actively thwart competitors in an entirely different market (mobile OS) -- that's the sort of thing that gets the attention of antitrust.
> meanwhile I'm still here waiting for my native Linux ports of Office and Halo?
As far as I'm aware, MS is not actively blocking efforts to get things to work in WINE and similar projects. So there's a difference there from your Google example.
And yet, MS _is_ under active antitrust investigation for their intermingling of gaming platforms and studio games exclusives, relating to their attempts to buy even more major studios.
You're talking about the same Microsoft that periodically "helpfully" changes default browser back to Edge (from Google Chrome) and also resets search engine from Google to Bing?
While adding a very small, TINY little link you need to really look for to avoid having this reset?
Microsoft’s bad behaviour does not excuse Google’s bad behaviour.
As I noted, MS engages with anticompetitive behaviour and is undergoing investigation for that again.
The items you reference with browsers may be cause for concern as well. A crucial difference is that MS is _not_ a market leader in the browser space, they are a poorly performing underdog. So while concerning, it’s less of an issue than if Edge was doing well.
> So while concerning, it’s less of an issue than if Edge was doing well
I don't think it's wise to give a proven monopolist company a pass on monopoly behavior just because their products is not (yet) a market leader. They use monopoly behavior to become the market leader.
I agree. Which is why I find it concerning. It’s also a lousy way to treat your customers, I’m likewise annoyed every time windows yoinks my Firefox defaults.
I just find it significantly more concerning when someone like Google uses their monopoly power in one market to thwart potential new competitors in another market.
Both are bad. But blocking new entrants is especially bad.
Google is under no obligation to help their competitors. When they use their competitive advantage in one market (online video) to actively thwart competitors in an entirely different market (mobile OS) -- that's the sort of thing that gets the attention of antitrust.
> meanwhile I'm still here waiting for my native Linux ports of Office and Halo?
As far as I'm aware, MS is not actively blocking efforts to get things to work in WINE and similar projects. So there's a difference there from your Google example.
And yet, MS _is_ under active antitrust investigation for their intermingling of gaming platforms and studio games exclusives, relating to their attempts to buy even more major studios.