It’s hard to argue that a company can be a monopoly in an industry when they are third place in that industry (and still will be after said acquisition).
Positions change between console generations quite easily. Nintendo and Sega were battling for the crown in one generation, in the next they were far behind a newcomer. Sony absolutely dominated with the PS2 but the PS3 was dead even with the 360 the following generation.
MS is in 3rd place because they did next to nothing this generation to get Xbox higher in the rankings except their current move of trying to buy their way into dominance.
This is a purchase that will give MS a long term advantage. None of their competitors can really match this move because they aren’t worth 2.47 trillion USD. By allowing MS to do this the courts are signing to the world that smaller companies shouldn’t even bother competing because they can never outspend MS’s war chest.
None of what you said explains how Microsoft today (not 15 years ago, or in some hypothetical future) will have a monopoly before or after this acquisition.
By allowing MS to do this the courts are signing to the world that smaller companies shouldn’t even bother competing because they can never outspend MS’s war chest.
Which company would you have expected to compete in the console space in the foreseeable future that will have changed their minds because of this acquisition? I’m not aware of any, but I wouldn’t mind being shown that this is a real concern.
Consoles rely on 3rd party support to be successful. MS just bought out one of the largest 3rd party publishers and will no doubt use its control over it to deny/compromise support to its competitors. This is much larger than you think. To make it worse there is no real counter play for its competitors who aren’t as flushed with cash as they are.
