They already have been offering something better than Microsoft. Microsoft has already had digital stores available that failed, because Microsoft wasn't offering something better. So instead of offering better quality (competition), Microsoft abuses it's power in an illegal way (product tying).
if they already offer something better, then don't complain.
Have you read the thread? I'm not complaining that Microsoft is offering something worse or better, I'm complaining that they are abusing their position in a questionably legal way.
My complaint is: "Steam, and other companies, are offering better products. Microsoft can't compete in quality, because all their attempts failed. Instead of competing
, they are abusing their position as the platform holder to gain the lion's share of customers, which harms competition instead of helping it."
I said, "Steam offers a better product, Microsoft is doing something that I think is borderline illegal according to the laws of this country, and harmful to the developers and consumers (and I explained why I think that)".
You said: "It benefits developers, stop complaining, Steam just needs to make a better product."
I said: "Steam already has a better product."
You said: "Then stop complaining"
Clearly you don't get what I'm complaining about: They are doing something that might be illegal (there's no hard and fast laws here, because it depends on the size of the company and is open to the interpretations of judges) to reduce competition, because they thus far hasn't been able to compete through quality.
there's no abuse of power here, just a app store. just because their system is the most used they don't have the rights to create a store and ship it on the system?
Yes. Just because they control the vast vast majority of the market, their actions have a much
greater effect on the market, and the government has special regulations for companies with that much sway.
[the microsoft lawsuit was because microsoft have took action to ensure that netscape won't function properly on windows. that is unfair competition.
That wasn't the only reason for the lawsuit. Another reason was the bundling of IE with Windows itself, not just the API that favored Internet Explorer.
steam whants to compete? make exclusivity deals, maintain better prices, maintain it's promotions.
been competing, they have had
the best prices and
the best promotions (and innovation). If Microsoft's Windows Store takes the consumers anyway, despite Steam being better in every way, then that means that competition through quality, pricing, and promotion, is pointless because the customers are all using the Windows Store - thus harming the competition, not helping it.
This is my whole point. Steam is very competitive, through the normal methods of competition, and they are rightly benefiting from it. If Microsoft comes along and takes the consumers without
better pricing, promotions, innovation, and quality of service, then it makes Steam's and Origin's and every other store's competition pointless.
as for the website for your games, how many games for iOS or android have websites? you don't need it. it's a plus, but you don't need it unless you are making a AAA game.
But your argument was, "If you are on the Windows Store, you save the cost of having to make a website". That's not true. You don't need
a website, but being on the Windows Store doesn't save the cost of a website anymore than the app store or Steam does.
someone said the Xbox live is only used because it's the only option, well, i know (as in "i see every day and chat with") at least 10 people that choose XBox insted of PS3 just because of the live.
You're mixing two different things. XBox Live (as in the entire online system) contains Xbox Live Arcade
(the digital store). If another company had a digital store on the XBox 360, to compete with XBox Live Arcade it'd have to offer: Better prices, more/better games, better promotions, and better interfaces and features... which would in turn force XBox Live Arcade to upgrade itself, and the other store would upgrade itself, creating better stores overall for the consumer.
Steam has a much unfair competition and doesn't complain. they compete with pirates and they are winning.
That is a whole conversation in itself, and isn't really relevant to the current discussion.
i don't understand any of you, it's just unfair competition because it's microsoft. and don't start again with market shares, because in any other industry, this doesn't matter.
In every other industry competition does
matter. In some other industries there isn't competition, but that doesn't mean competition wouldn't improve things.
Competition almost always improves things for the consumer, if the government A) Doesn't intrude on a regular basis B) Does get involved when a company steps across the line C) Encourages (through tax breaks) standardization and cross-compatibility.
Companies need to be large enough that economies of scale cut the cost, but not so large that they push out all the competition and stop innovating.
(I'm neither big business nor big government nor communistic
Putting aside that a large cornerstone of the case was that internet speeds at the time were prohibitively slow to download another web browser/application, which is no longer the case.
That's a good point. On the other hand, now we have things like this:
And then the actual installation and patching time for Steam, and not to mention having to know it even exists.
The problem is that you are assuming that monopolies are illegal, which is false. Abusing monopoly power is illegal, but there are many monopolies in the US. Local power companies are a good example
I know monopolies aren't illegal. Microsoft is a monopoly (maybe less so now, with Google and Apple catching up). Microsoft bundling IE with Windows was (possibly!) an abuse of that monopoly. Microsoft bundling Windows Store with Windows is (possibly! maybe! debatably!) an abuse of that monopoly - it's whether or not it actually is an abuse of power and position that I'm arguing about. I most likely am wrong, and hopefully it won't crush the higher-quality competitors... but if I'm going to talk about it with other intelligent developers on this forum, I'd rather do so before
the competition gets crushed or fails to be crushed, so I can at least have bragging rights if I'm correct.
US Anti-trust law is designed to protect consumers from monopolies, not to protect businesses from them.
Interesting, I didn't know that - I thought it was meant for both.