top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ClopClopMcFuckwad@lemmy.world 188 points 3 months ago

They're not too happy, and they may even write a strongly worded email expressing their unhappiness.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 96 points 3 months ago

You jest, but the FTC is trying to appeal (undo) the merger in court, and this makes their case a lot stronger: https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-ftc-tries-again-stop-microsofts-already-closed-deal-activision-2023-12-06/

For a 68,000,000,000$ deal, even if this helps the FTC by 1%, that's a huge risk

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 63 points 3 months ago

Good. After they un-merge them they can break them up into even smaller pieces. That way in another 30 years when we forget about antitrust against they can re-assemble the monopoly. Fun for everyone!

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 months ago


[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

They didn't even slam them.

[-] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Or even give them a good BLAST.

[-] emogu@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

The FTC Bukkakes Microsoft Over Activision Blizzard layoffs

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

That's the kind of click bait we need.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 119 points 3 months ago

Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard always reminds me of this:


Keep in mind that article is from 1998. Prescient as always, the Onion really is America's Finest News Source(TM).

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 51 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There's a book called The Media Monopoly that details how media companies have consolidated to just a handful of mega corps and the book had to be republished 5 times since the 80s because every few years the number keeps shrinking dramatically. The author later released a brand new book called The New Media Monopoly which is essentially the 7th edition of the original book and at this point we're in a fucked up late stage version of the problem he originally detailed.

From the Wiki on the author:

In 2000 Bagdikian stated, "Every edition has been considered by some to be alarmist and every edition ends up being too conservative." In this latest version, Bagdikian wrote that the number of corporations controlling most of the media decreased to five: Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and Bertelsmann. He argued, "This gives each of the five corporations and their leaders more communications power than was exercised by any despot or dictatorship in history."

The Onion is a bit too accurate sometimes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cygon@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

Bill Clinton, chief executive of U.S. Government, a division of MCI-WorldCom, praised Monday's merger as "an excellent move."

I'll be... they even predicted the "sovereign citizen" movement!

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

Bill Clinton, chief executive of U.S. Government, a division of MCI-WorldCom, praised Monday's merger as "an excellent move."'


[-] HaveYouPaidYourDues@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Taco Bell won the franchise wars

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 78 points 3 months ago

Damn, would be crazy if they succeed in undoing the merger. Would be nice to see some consequences for blatantly lying to the court.

[-] zcd@lemmy.ca 66 points 3 months ago

No you see it’s OK to lie to the court when you’re rich or a multinational company

[-] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 30 points 3 months ago

Hmm, SCOTUS can see no issue with that argument. Passes historicity test for what the founders intended.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] magnetosphere@kbin.social 77 points 3 months ago

Microsoft reneged on promises it made in court…

If those promises aren’t legally binding, then why take them into account in the first place?

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I will literally never understand why the word of a corporation has any weight if it isn't bound by law.

You need to force corporations to act if it's against their own interests.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 71 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Microsoft has realized it can do absolutely anything and that the government will do absolutely nothing. And what is the point of all of this? A few already, enormously wealthy executives get a few more millions of dollars? Who fucking cares? The real important thing is the people doing the work to create a product that millions of others enjoy. That they have a job and can earn a livelihood. But none of that matters to the psychopaths who run these corporations. Why do we continue to allow this to happen? I don't know why I even bother writing comments anymore. I've depressed myself.

[-] ExpectedWall@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

The only way to fight back is with your wallet. Unfortunately we are SUBSTANTIALLY outnumbered. It is what it is.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 56 points 3 months ago

The actual fuck did they think was gonna happen? Literally everyone saw this coming except the FTC somehow I guess.

[-] brisk@aussie.zone 95 points 3 months ago

The FTC argued this would happen, it's the court that swallowed Microsoft's tripe. This is the FTC's "I told you, bro!"

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

The FTC knew it was coming, and tried to stop the merger. But they got shot down in the courts, because a judge believed Microsoft was going to be benevolent and not immediately lay off all of the acquired company’s employees.

This is the FTC’s way of publicly slapping the judge.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

The FTC tried to stop the merger, it’s not their fault. Blame the courts.

[-] Vaderhoff@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago

I don't think I've seen a game studio acquisition happen without layoffs of some sort. Doesn't make it right, but it does seem like a horrible routine.

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 months ago

The price tag, followed by a massive round of layoffs is eyebrow-raising.

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 39 points 3 months ago

Stock markets love capex, hates opex.

“Well done, you’ve spent 75 billion to buy market share!!”

“Oh no, you would spend at least 230 million/year for these employees - that just won’t do”.

Nevermind the fact that 1900 roles also buys market share (and you could run 1900 people for 300+ years), but opex is opex and execs are bonused on margins.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

And the worst part is they will then brag about how low their opex is to the employees that are still there in the quarterly all-hands, as if it isn't representing how much money they are making but not paying to employees. Well, ok, the worst part is the doing rather than the bragging, but still.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

For the unaware:
Capex=capital expenditures. These are the one-time purchases, which grow the business.
Opex=operating expenditures. These are the recurring costs of doing business. Payroll, utility payments, rent for office buildings, etc…

Basically, the stock market loves it when you buy things. Stock owners see it as growing the company, and therefore growing the value of the stock. But they hate operating expenditures, because those make the company seem less valuable; Buying Activision (capex) is great for stock prices, but paying their employees (opex) isn’t.

This is why big corporate acquisitions are usually immediately followed by huge rounds of layoffs for the acquired company. The new company owns the things, but doesn’t want the opex to show up on the next quarterly expense report. So they’ll usually gut the acquired company. Because they’re usually buying other companies for things like copyrights, patents, trade secrets, etc… If they were interested in the employees at the acquired company, they’d be using recruiting tactics and headhunting, instead of simply buying the entire company.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] eronth@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago
[-] secundnature@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago

They talk about broken promises and misrepresentation of what they would do after the merger. Corporations aren’t people and don’t have morals to stop them from breaking promises or just flat out lying. The only way they will do anything is if it makes them money or they are forced (regulated)

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

What did they think was going to happen?

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

Well I for one am shocked to see a megacap do significant layoffs after M&A, talk about breaking with tradition!

[-] Vaderhoff@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

This also pretty shitty on account that Kotick initiated loads of layoffs just before acquisition talks were even public. This is usual practice to make the company seem more valuable.

[-] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And I’m not too happy with how capitalism chows down on the poor like the fucking Oroborus it is yet here we fuckin are.

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 14 points 3 months ago

but how can i, a humble citizen, help the FTC in its long term mission of protecting my labor rights.. what can i do to help them be more effective in labor negotiations on my behalf, i wonder..

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Eli5 please.. in lieu of US trust busting, couldn't literally any government entity like the EU, where msft etc Al do business, have stopped this acquisition? How did this happen in the first place?

[-] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago

As far as I understand the circumstances, because Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard are both US companies, they ultimately fall under US regulation except for any of their offices/holdings in other countries, where they have to abide by the local laws. The reason the FTC is upset now is that Microsoft had said that Activision-Blizzard was largely going to be its own independent company under the Microsoft brand, so these layoffs go against those promises - especially with the wording about removing "overlap" between the companies, which points to them firing people at Activision-Blizzard who had the same job as people already working at Microsoft. The only reason that they'd do that is if they're not actually letting Activision-Blizzard run on their own and are going to be merging the company into Microsoft more than they had said they would.

I do remember something about the UK signing off on the merger, so I assume that there are some countries that did their own "due diligence" and approved the acquisition, but a majority of these layoffs are in California by the sounds of it, so all any of them could really do at this point is hold Microsoft liable if they don't follow local labor laws about severances and the like. I assume that they felt the same way as the FTC, in that the promise of Activision-Blizzard running on their own meant that there was little concern about monopolizing the industry.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
528 points (98.4% liked)


54326 readers
5351 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 11 months ago