For decades, Microsoft has used bundling to eliminate rivals. The integration of Internet Explorer into Windows in the 1990s crushed Netscape, and similar tactics continue today with Teams and Microsoft 365. These moves are not acts of innovation but acts of exclusion—using one monopoly to create another. Through forced integration, Microsoft locks customers inside its ecosystem, making alternatives impractical or incompatible.
The company's acquisitions further consolidate its reach. Buying LinkedIn gave it control over professional networking, GitHub over open-source development, and the Activision Blizzard deal over a major part of the gaming industry. Combined with its partnership in OpenAI, Microsoft's influence now spans work, communication, entertainment, and artificial intelligence. This vertical power extends far beyond healthy competition—it is the architecture of digital dependency with increasing concerns about privacy (also see Microsoft faces new GDPR privacy investigation over Windows 10 telemetry).
Microsoft's dominance allows it to dictate pricing, standards, and even the direction of technological development. Its software is embedded in nearly every public and private institution, giving it a quasi-governmental role in managing critical infrastructure. When one company controls so much of the world's digital foundation, democracy, innovation, and consumer freedom are all at risk.
Most Microsoft users' biggest frustration is the loss of control over their own devices. Forced Windows updates can restart computers without warning, sometimes introducing bugs or breaking compatibility. The shift to Microsoft 365 subscriptions traps users in ongoing payments, while integrated cloud services collect data constantly, raising privacy concerns. Pre-installed apps, ads, and promotion of Microsoft's own ecosystem add to the sense that the software is steering users rather than serving them. Overall, users feel constrained, with limited choice over updates, customization, and how their systems function.
The antitrust laws of the United States—the Sherman and Clayton Acts—were designed to prevent exactly this. Past monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T were dismantled not to punish success, but to restore fairness and opportunity. Breaking up Microsoft today would do the same: unlock competition, lower costs, and ensure that no single corporation can dictate the terms of our digital future.
Microsoft's size is not its crime—its abuse of that size is. The time has come to divide its empire, to separate Windows, Office, Azure, and its acquisitions into independent entities. Only then can innovation thrive, consumers regain choice, and the digital world return to a state of open possibility.
Israel maintains extensive technological and commercial ties with Microsoft, primarily through cloud computing, cybersecurity, and defense-related contracts. Microsoft operates major research and development centers in Israel, employing thousands of engineers who contribute to core products such as Azure and cybersecurity tools. The company also provides software, AI, and cloud services to the Israeli government, including the Ministry of Defense, which has used Microsoft's Azure infrastructure for data storage and analytics. While Israel does not control Microsoft, these partnerships illustrate a close alignment between the company and Israel's tech and defense sectors, making Microsoft a significant player in Israel's digital and security ecosystem.
Microsoft hasn't been broken up under antitrust laws largely because regulators have historically favored oversight over dismantling. In the 1990s, the U.S. government sued Microsoft for monopolistic practices, but the case ended with behavioral remedies rather than a structural breakup. Today, Microsoft operates across multiple markets—Windows, Office, Azure, cloud services, AI, and gaming—making it legally complex to define a single market for antitrust purposes. Authorities also weigh the risks of disrupting critical services used by governments, businesses, and millions of consumers. Instead, regulators focus on monitoring Microsoft's conduct, such as preventing anti-competitive bundling or scrutinizing acquisitions, rather than splitting the company apart.
Breaking up a company as large and complex as Microsoft would require deep technical, legal, and economic expertise across multiple fields: operating systems, cloud computing, AI, enterprise software, and global markets. Many government regulators may lack the specialized knowledge or resources to design and implement a breakup without causing massive disruption.
So, in practical terms, yes—we're largely "stuck" with Microsoft's dominance, at least for now. The company's scale, scope, and entrenchment make a full breakup extremely difficult, both legally and technically. Regulators tend to rely on behavioral oversight—monitoring anti-competitive practices, limiting bundling, and scrutinizing acquisitions—rather than forcing a structural split. In the mean time, staring at Microsoft under a microscope is the modern way to watch a monopoly flourish while pretending you have a choice.
________
Related:
Then we come to the Microsoft hatchet man who it is alleged started it all but never programmed a line of code in his life. Gates has about as much credibility as a priest caught raping a little alter boy:
As Bill Gates walks back climate change threats, an apology is in order
As Bill Gates walks back climate change threats, an apology is in order
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.