I know the market well enough.
I see no better solution than requiring MS to promote and distribute it's
competitor's products.
The company I work for follows similar rules to encourage competitiveness.
We are obliged to offer parts of our service to our competitors at a reduced
rate so that they can sell them on.
A competitive market is not an ends in it's self.
The
only purpose of the competitive market is to provide benefit to the
consumer. When monopolies abuse their position in such a way that this no
longer happens it is right and proper that
any rules necessary should be
enforced to ensure that a competitive marketplace is maintained.
Quote:
|
You could as well demand Mercedes to sell Toyotas in their own shops.
|
The closest car analogy I can come up with is:
(if it is tenuous that is only because cars are very unlike browsers)
Lets say it is the year 2050 and car production is so efficient that each car
is practically free. The only money to be made is from selling car batteries.
Mercedes is now almost the only company in the world that sells houses.
With each house they sell, they give away a free Mercedes car. This is
good for Merc. because they sell more batteries and get their logo out
more.
In this market Toyota can't possibly compete. Even tho they also give out
Toyotas for free, fewer people will take them, even if they are slightly
better, because everyone already has the free Merc. they got with their
house.
The only way to bring back competition is either to stop Mercedes sending
out any free cars with each house or to require them to distribute and
promote other manufacture's free cars with each house. The latter option
being far more practical for the consumer.