• Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      11 months ago

      I was laughing at the onion article and stopped- was that really published in 1998 ?!?!? Or is the date also a joke?

      • hobovision@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It reads like it’s from 98. The references to Blockbuster, Daimler-Chrysler, McDonnell Douglas, and Bill Clinton tipped me off this was an old one.

      • MangoKangaroo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        Wikipedia says that The Onion has had a website since '96, so it’s definitely possible! (Also, TIL The Onion has existed since 1988.)

        • Mothra@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          I knew the onion is old, but didn’t imagine they would keep a website with old articles still up!

          • wim@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Why not? It costs nothing, appart from transforming the old format into something the current site can work with, or more likely, have the old site support tbe old format.

      • Phroon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        It really is that old. According to their Supreme Court amicus brief: “Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.” Seriously though, read that brief. It’s a masterful piece of satire.

    • Goronmon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s hard to block mergers based on a company involved being a monopoly if none of the companies involved are monopolies or will become monopolies.

      Regulators have to come up with a different set of rules to block “large but not monopolistic mergers” without also just effectively protecting the actual leader in a given industry from competition.

    • smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      That applies to open software standards, what does it have to do with buying cash cows?

      • Goronmon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        That applies to open software standards, what does it have to do with buying cash cows?

        It has no real meaning anymore. It’s now a phrase people throw around as effectively a meme. You won’t get anything but a wrong answer to this question.

        • smeg@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          It does seem like some people just automatically post it on every thread that mentions Microsoft. Just because we all dislike something doesn’t mean we want to see the same low-effort comments spammed every time they come up in discussion like we’re still on Reddit!

      • Platform27@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It applies to most business.

        1. You give a positive face to the market you’re in (Game Pass, Phil Spencer, pro-dev vibe, etc).
        2. You buy chunks of the market (Activ-Bliz-King is a massive chunk), while saying it’s good for the industry.
        3. You squeeze the company of its IP, while bleeding the market dry of money. All of which kills, or at least hurts that market.

        Right now, Micro$oft is in the Extend phase.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          If you bring up Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, especially since we’re talking about Microsoft, that is not what it means, and your definition has issues, because if you’re buying a big company for a lot of money, the last thing you want to do is extinguish it.

        • Goronmon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s not what “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” means. You just came up with three numbered items to correspond to the fact that there are three words in the phrase.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It doesn’t even apply to software standards lol. It’s a dumb “playbook” probably made by some coked out Microsoft middle manager in the 00s that wasn’t even widely successfully used. Lemmy’s crappy example of it is Google “killing” an extensible messaging protocol, which is nonsense because they didn’t kill anything (you don’t “kill” a protocol), they extended it into a proprietary version. You know, because it’s extensible.

        The only relevance “embrace, extend, extinguish” has in today’s society is as an excuse to spread FUD and ragebait on Lemmy.

    • nik0@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes, embrace, extend and extinguish my breast milk drinking.

  • sculd@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 months ago

    Honestly this is bad for the gaming industry.

    I understand a lot of game pass subscribers want more free stuff.

    But just look at what Netflix had became after its success.

    Or even just look at MS’s track record in using their monopolies to bully competitors.

    Years later we will look at this and watch the tragedy unfold.

  • totallynotfbi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s a shame the UK’s Competitive Markets Authority let this merger go through after all. I can’t wait for the future, when 90% of the most popular games are made by 3 companies

  • Bruno Finger@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    That’s quite interesting, leaving aside all the monopoly arguments, I think this has potential to being very beneficial to all blizzard games, and so to us.

    • Piers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      It looks like Kotick will be leaving after the transition so that’s a great start. My dream is that this all somehow leads to the full Overwatch PvE campaign coming back onto the table again (given that their attempts to provide long-term replay ability without doing the work seem to be floundering now, there’s a chance right?)

    • TheresNodiee@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’ll definitely be interesting to see how MS treats Blizz’s ongoing IPs. There’s definitely opportunity to improve things there with Diablo 4 not keeping people’s attention and OW2… being OW2.