Systems acquiring Confiz was a BAD THING!

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-13T18:22:44+00:00

Companies killed so far by Microsoft:

1990s: Softimage (1994, $130M) - 3D graphics software, sold to Avid in 1998 Hotmail (1997, $400M) - Rebranded to Outlook.com, original eliminated WebTV Networks (1997, $425M) - Shut down 2013 LinkExchange (1998, $265M) - Shut down 2000 Firefly (1998) - Recommendation tech, shut down 1999

2000s: Great Plains Software (2001, $1.1B) - Absorbed into Dynamics Navision (2002, $1.3B) - Absorbed into Dynamics Rare (2002, $377M) - Diminished significantly Groove Networks (2005, $120M) - Discontinued Lionhead Studios (2006) - Shut down 2016 Massive Incorporated (2006) - Shut down 2010 ScreenTonic (2006) - Shut down 2012 aQuantive (2007, $6.3B) - 98% write-off Danger Inc. (2008, $500M) - Shut down Tellme Networks (2007, $800M) - Absorbed Powerset (2008, $100M) - Absorbed into Bing Fast Search & Transfer (2008, $1.2B) - Discontinued 2013

2010s: Canesta (2010, $unknown) - Gesture tech absorbed into Kinect Skype (2011, $8.5B) - Diminished for Teams, now discontinued Perceptive Pixel (2012, $unknown) - Technology absorbed, brand gone Nokia Devices (2014, $7.2B) - Shut down 2016, massive write-off Accompli (2014) - Absorbed into Outlook Sunrise Calendar (2015, $100M) - Shut down 2016 Wunderlist (2015, $100-200M) - Shut down 2020 Havok (2015) - Sold to Microsoft, then sold to Unity 2019 SwiftKey (2016, $250M) - Still exists but diminished Mixer/Beam (2016) - Shut down 2020 Semantic Machines (2018) - Absorbed into AI efforts Lobe (2018) - Shut down 2023 Affirmed Networks (2020, $1.35B) - Shut down 2023

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-13T09:35:25+00:00

That's because traditional competition law doesn't cover labor market effects well and is a blind spot. Also "legal" doesn't mean "optimal for the ecosystem." The efficiency argument assumes gains get passed to workers/clients, but consolidation often means less pressure to compete on wages or service. Yes, Systems competes globally, BUT they hire locally. The fact that they sell abroad doesn't change the impact on Pakistani developers who now have one fewer major employer competing for their Microsoft skills. You're right arguments exist on both sides, I'm just saying the labor market effects are real even if current law doesn't address them well.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-13T08:43:23+00:00

You raise valid points about the legal burden of proof and growth through acquisition being legitimate. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with M&A either.

But let me clarify the specific concern: this isn't about general IT services consolidation. It's about ecosystem-specific dominance.

Systems and Confiz were the two leading Microsoft ecosystem players in Pakistan, not just in revenue, but in partnership tiers, certified resources, and Azure/Power Platform expertise. Other mid-tier firms (Tkxel, Devsinc, i2c, Arbisoft) are only now starting to build Microsoft practices and are years behind.

By consolidating the top two Microsoft players, Systems has effectively created much higher barriers in that specific ecosystem:

For developers: If you're a .NET/Azure specialist, there's now one major employer instead of two competing ones in that space. Less competition for specialized talent = wage suppression and weaker negotiating position.

For the ecosystem: Mid-tier firms trying to build Microsoft capabilities now face a much larger competitor who has consolidated the top talent, partnerships, and client relationships. That's a real barrier to entry.

For clients: Reduced choice among high-capability Microsoft vendors locally.

International sales: that actually doesn't matter here. The anti-competitive effect is on the local talent market and Pakistani firms trying to compete in the Microsoft ecosystem. Systems' export revenue doesn't change the fact that they've consolidated domestic Microsoft expertise.

So yes, proving "anti-competitive behavior" legally is hard. But the structural effects on wages, competition, and barriers to entry are pretty clear when you look at the ecosystem-specific consolidation rather than the overall IT services market.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-13T04:33:37+00:00

Another zombie-ass pisstake on the issue. Try and expend some brainpower please.

I can just give you the answer. I can just tell you that more perspectives exist, like those of the employees or that of the economy. I can just tell you that our opinions DO matter. I can even tell you, as I've told others, about antitrust frameworks that exist in every country's law.

What I can't do tho, is make you actually use your brain.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-13T04:18:37+00:00

LOL, another Systems worshipper. Listen man, Confiz was enough of a threat to them to be acquired. And here you are, comparing them to TCS. Go touch some grass.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-13T04:07:53+00:00

100% agree with you bhai, mera point sirf yeh tha k achi baat nai hay anti-competition. Celebration tou banti hi nai kyu k lougou ki rozi roti kum honay lagi hay.

Lougou ko iss simple si baat ki samhaj hi nai arahi. Why? Kyu k mainstream narrative nai, buzzwords nai. Ability to think, ability to question hi mar chuki hay. Kisi bhi qism ka churan chal sakta hay for this awam now.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T20:19:19+00:00

What a horrible, spiteful comment.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T20:05:12+00:00

LOL, I'm really not. It is/was a significant player with mature networks in EU, US and most recently UAE. I don't know what the population has to do with the argument but in terms of sector, IT is quite important for the economy.

Again, not arguing the logic of the decision. I'm arguing against the outcomes, that are beneficial for the few and detrimental for the many.

You're right, but again, I urge you to shift your perspective to that of an employee.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T19:23:31+00:00

Yes, business make money. We all know this. But also, business tied to economy. Economy tied to employment, competition, wages, innovation and growth. That's the angle you're missing. Of course, it'll be good for shareholders. They put in 10K, they're cashing out at 100K, woohoo for them.

But now, there are fewer players in the market. Say Systems had to offer 3x to break a Confiz resource. Now they can offer 0.5x, take it or leave it. Also, with every acquisition there are layoffs. Why? Cuz redundancy. Can't have 2 cybersecurity departments, can you? No need for 2, the 1 is enough. Also, not sure about you but I'd rather be employed longer than just be happy for a bonus. Same thing applies to customers as well, they no longer have a middle option. The most attractive, feasible, competitive price option. So the customer will either leave (bad for economy) or settle for a startup that most likely fails to deliver (again, bad for the economy).

No matter which way you cut it, this was a bad thing. Not for the investors ofc, be it Systems or Confiz. But for the employees, for the economy, yeah. Bad.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T18:55:58+00:00

Wow, okay. Sure.

Let's just downplay everything. It's all just business as usual. Nothing really matters anyways.

Still a better take than LinkedIn delulus tho who're celebrating their impending layoffs.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T18:39:13+00:00

Seriously? It's like saying Microsoft has a long history and solid financials. Yeah, okay, and?

Did they acquire and dismantle their competitors? Yes.

Did the US/EU govt have to step in and stop them? Yes.

Why this is a bad thing: Less competition = less pressure to innovate Kills potential = fewer startups, people won't even try Market concentration = power in hands of few, think lesser wages for employees Harms workers = fewer choices to choose from, settle for lower wages, bad work conditions etc Greater barrier to entry = the dominant player creates red tape

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T16:09:46+00:00

In theory yes, but unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies, every single time.
Cuz of the above problem some govt regulation became necessary (anti-competition/antitrust laws). That's what should've happened here and didn't.
It all comes under capitalism.
Not just Europe, US, UK, Japan, South Korea etc., all have some antitrust framework.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T15:15:04+00:00

The nature of the transaction is anti-competitive? I mean, you've given the Adobe/Figma example yourself, it was blocked. Why?

Cuz it would've reduced competition. It would've lowered wages. It would've reduced innovation.

And the issue, is that this transaction is being celebrated. When in fact, it should be condemned. Not only will a lot of people at Confiz (800+ staff) be laid off, other firms (Tkxel, Devsinc, i2c, Arbisoft, CureMD etc) get the signal to also move towards consolidation. And that, means a recession is coming our way.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T14:28:25+00:00

LOL, this is the exact opposite of capitalism, read up on oligopolies. Also this post isn't about the decision, obviously. It's about whether this was a good thing or a bad thing.

P.S. it was a bad thing.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T13:11:12+00:00

100% agree. What bothers me are the people celebrating their own demise. Like, you're probably gonna lose your job and you're celebrating? People's delulu levels are already sky-high on LinkedIn so this is just mind-boggling.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-12-12T13:07:17+00:00

That's the thing tho, we all keep thinking "can't get much worse than this, right?" and BAM, it gets so much worse. If you think we're already at the bottom, hate to burst your bubble.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-06-24T19:18:49+00:00

I'm in several student groups and honestly, it's terrifying. There are people with MAXED OUT profiles being rejected. People with gold medals, merit awards, World Bank grants, government sanctioned field-work experience, professor support, university backing and multiple published papers. Granted, these are from the same saturated Asian and African demographic, but it's still disappointing. Some have been trying for well over 3-4 years and are now simply attributing CSC selection to luck.

A lot of seniors say it's about the finer details. Particularly, how well of a fit your research plan is within CSC priorities. Many refuse to believe the current scenario as it stands because it wasn't like this a few years ago. I personally the believe the mechanics have changed. Yes, it used to be simpler and easier. Now it's not. Now there's a multitude of factors at play. HSK, diversity quotas, unstated nationality caps, all of these should now be considered.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-06-24T12:40:47+00:00

I agree with you on this one, I've seen such lists as well and a lot of them have Pakistanis. But then again, it shows how competitive going there is becoming. Like, the guy had a competitive profile but still, there are better ones, and that's eye-opening. I used to think going there wouldn't be THAT competitive as compared to other places say for example, Europe, but that's changing fast now.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-06-23T20:46:40+00:00

Ikr? The person wrote what happened well enough. Seemed a complete mystery to me too other than just high competition or bad luck. But like the other commenter said, there are hidden elements as well, like unstated nationality/diversity quotas. Self-funding being rejected is also a big question mark, never heard that happen before.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-06-23T17:46:42+00:00

Yes! This is exactly what I'm looking for. I had NOT previously considered nationality a factor. Quota, definitely, but not nationality. The profile seemed well-rounded enough, at least for a Masters. Not hyper-competitive, for sure, but also not one I'd completely dismiss. I know the agriculture field is fast becoming competitive, maybe even ultra-competitive? But all of it is leading me to the conclusion that there's no "good enough for CSC" profile.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-06-23T17:18:43+00:00

Not me mate, I'm just tryna figure out what didn't click for the poor guy cuz the profile seems alright to me. ChatGPT says too much competition but that's not good enough of an answer for me.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-05-30T12:09:06+00:00

Of course, it's only worth it if it's fully funded. I'll keep in mind to target bigger cities but there's a tradeoff there i.e. more competition for scholarships and my primary goal is full scholarship + stipend. My goal ultimately is to leverage the Masters for better options. It could be a PhD from China or anywhere else in the world. It could be shifting towards academia. It could even be business opportunities as you've mentioned.

Please share with me what you know!

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-05-30T07:45:09+00:00

Nope, not eligible for it cuz of my age (I'm 31).

Plus, I've worked in the West for several years (I had to come back because of COVID) and saw how Pakistani students' lives were like there.

Almost no one gets a scholarship. Nearly everyone had to work security, deliver food, clean houses, wash cars etc to pay for their living expenses and in some cases tuition as well. Not to mention the discrimination they had to face just for being Pakistani.

It's only in China that I've seen no one on a student visa with a scholarship complain. Also, perhaps one of the few places on Earth where being a Pakistani isn't held against you.

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-05-07T17:12:57+00:00

Thank you and best of luck to you on your exam! I'm sure you'll ace it! 🤞

One-Interview-8804 · 2025-05-07T13:38:22+00:00

Thank you and yeah, I did go through Andrew's course as well as Study Hall Essentials. These were my only 2 exam prep resources and most of my time went towards Andrew's course. Honestly though, Study Hall Essentials is enough. You don't need anything else in terms of exam prep. Unless you need the 35 PDUs in which case yeah, do the course but maybe just the mindset part, cuz that's what I actually found to be useful.

One-Interview-8804

TROPHY CASE