"Microsoft is switching off its Windows Live Messenger service on 15 March.
On that date Messenger log-ins will no longer work and users must turn to Skype, said Microsoft in an email sent to all Messenger users.
The email also encouraged users to update to Skype and familiarise themselves with the service before the switch-off.
The service switch is a consequence of Microsoft's acquisition of Skype in October 2011 for $8.5bn (£5.3bn)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20984820
A few more acquisitions like this and the world could end up with what amounts to a monopoly in providing this kind of facility. Is this to be expected and welcomed?
Originally posted by FMFYes I got that message yesterday.
[quote][b]"Microsoft is switching off its Windows Live Messenger service on 15 March.
On that date Messenger log-ins will no longer work and users must turn to Skype, said Microsoft in an email sent to all Messenger users.
The email also encouraged users to update to Skype and familiarise themselves with the service before the switch-off.
The servic ...[text shortened]... mounts to a monopoly in providing this kind of facility. Is this to be expected and welcomed?[/b]
So what's all the panic about?
Originally posted by FMFThis is an interesting case, because in social networks, messaging services etc. monopolization is driven by social reasons - people only want to use one or at most a few messaging services so they will use whatever their friends are using. Entry to the market is easy, but convincing people that it's worth switching to a different messaging service is hard.
The topic is monopoly. In a case like this, is it inevitable? Do some sort of economies of scale trump consumer choice in terms of benefits and efficiency?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFit seems the greatest irony of slavishly following the free market libertarian view, is that unbridled competition tends towards monopoly. Without a well regulated market and strong governmental agencies to police anti-trust activities, consumer needs are usually the first casualty in the war of continued market performance and growth to satisfy and maintain skittish investor confidence. There are other casualties of this approach. Justice for one. Just look at HSBC. Now we have too big to prosecute!
The topic is monopoly. In a case like this, is it inevitable? Do some sort of economies of scale trump consumer choice in terms of benefits and efficiency?
Originally posted by FMFBill Gates never let a charge of monopoly get in the way of his way of doing business.
[quote][b]"Microsoft is switching off its Windows Live Messenger service on 15 March.
On that date Messenger log-ins will no longer work and users must turn to Skype, said Microsoft in an email sent to all Messenger users.
The email also encouraged users to update to Skype and familiarise themselves with the service before the switch-off.
The servic ...[text shortened]... mounts to a monopoly in providing this kind of facility. Is this to be expected and welcomed?[/b]
Originally posted by kmax87I remember IBM's near monopoly .....
.. unbridled competition tends towards monopoly. Without a well regulated market and strong governmental agencies to police anti-trust activities, consumer needs are usually the first casualty ...
Microsoft, Google, Apple they still have to be at the top of their game.
1 edit
Originally posted by VartiovuoriSomething changed some years back such that my gmail account and yahoo account could not be logged in at the same time. IDK what caused that but it really pissed me off.
Google never took over Yahoo. Are you sure you don't mean something else?
Take a look here:
http://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/youtube/c5lPZNudfqk