You can't jail a company. And breaking one up is pretty much impossible considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.
You can't jail a company. And breaking one up is pretty much impossible considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.
You can imagine things a country could do in this respect. Require the devices they sell in your country to be completely unlocked with respect to third party app stores and operating systems, but also with respect to regions so that people can buy the unlocked ones there and use them anywhere. Invalidate their copyrights in your country so that third parties can ship phones with iOS. It's punishment, they're not supposed to like it. There are plenty of things they wouldn't like.
Also, putting aside whether the UK could actually break them up, the US or the EU could actually break them up.
> and operating systems
This must be an essential requirement for all PC-like devices.
> regions
People in different regions have very different average income. As long as manufacturer scales prices accordingly, I think locking to this region might be appropriate.
> buy the unlocked ones there and use them anywhere
In the case if the price is already the worldwide highest one, you're right, no locking to the region is needed.
> EU could actually break them up
I think, EU could only achieve that a non-EU-based company leaves EU.
> This must be an essential requirement for all PC-like devices.
Why are you excluding phone-like devices? That's where it's currently the bigger problem. You can't do it at all on iPhones and Android devices malign you with locked boot loaders, attestation failures and undocumented blob drivers tied to an ancient kernel version.
> People in different regions have very different average income. As long as manufacturer scales prices accordingly, I think locking to this region might be appropriate.
It's discriminating against the poor people of any country that also happens to have rich people in it. Both the poor and rich people of that country should want it banned there for their own benefit and they're the ones who get to decide that.
> In the case if the price is already the worldwide highest one, you're right, no locking to the region is needed.
The point of prohibiting the region locking in this case is that it also allows the unlocked versions of that vendor's devices to spread across the world, making them feel the remedy. But also, it would be fine for everyone to just prohibit region locking everywhere. Price discrimination is an arbitrage opportunity and it ought to stay that way.
> I think, EU could only achieve that a non-EU-based company leaves EU.
International companies aren't "based" anywhere in particular except for on paper, but Apple has significant operations in the EU. Moreover, they sell a significant number of devices there.
The way a breakup works anywhere is that the government says "separate these business units into a separate entity or you can't operate here" and then if they don't do it, they both lose >$100B in annual revenue and cause there to be a large economic region where they don't exist which becomes a breeding ground for new competitors that can then spread into other regions. Given that choice, investors might be pretty unhappy if the executives choose that over just separating the company out into ones that collectively get to keep all of that revenue.
> Why are you excluding phone-like devices?
Actually not, for me *smart*phones are PC-like devices. Smartphone, especially modern one, is obviously a miniature personal computer.
> It's discriminating against the poor people of any country that also happens to have rich people in it.
I think, poor people are discriminated in every country generally if they need to buy products designed by an international company. While I've mentioned average income, it should be strictly speaking median income.
> Price discrimination
I mean that countries with lower median income deserves cheaper products. So that relatively there should be only minimal difference for poor people to be able to buy such products, regardless of the country of origin.
> International companies aren't "based" anywhere in particular except for on paper,
That's a good question. This "on paper" is crucial for all the legal stuff. US-based companies must obey not only EU rules but also US. Especially problematic is when they'd need to break a EU law to comply with the US law but they are never allowed to do this vice versa. This way I'd define where a company is based.
> anywhere is that the government says
It will be problematic due to multiple governments would be involved (typically US, EU, UK, China).
> I mean that countries with lower median income deserves cheaper products.
So if you make $20,000 and live in a country with a median income of $40,000 then you should pay higher prices than someone who makes $200,000 and lives in a country with a median income of $10,000? Why?
Also, that's not really how prices work for non-monopolies. If everyone can profitably produce something and sell it for $100 in e.g. South America and then you try to charge $200 in the US or Europe, your competitors are just going to take your customers by charging $100 there too. The ability to engage in price discrimination shenanigans is evidence of an uncompetitive market.
> Why?
Just because of statistic.
But actually, of course, it would be fair to make individual prices. E.g. there is a photo-camera for 7000, it makes very very good photos. Someone makes every day money with photos and buys it. Someone else wants also very good photos for non-professional private use, family and even for posts in WEB (without a fee, only donations). But this someone else must pay the same 7000.
Needless to say that in case of individual prices, additional rules and locks will apply.
BTW, some electronic devices are sold cheaper for academics (universities, students).
> I think, EU could only achieve that a non-EU-based company leaves EU.
Exactly, also, the US would prevent that geopolitically.
> also, the US would prevent that geopolitically.
Everybody keeps saying that Trump is eroding US power etc. etc. Are they all lying or is the EU just too chicken to actually do it when it comes up? According to the TACO principle it goes the other way, right?
E.g. EU companies could replace China 5G. But with US chips. While some new tiny FPGAs appeared recently (using obsolete manufacturing process), huge FPGAs from Xilinx(AMD)/Altera(Intel) cannot be replaced. China can make both US and EU calm down with rare earth materials. US can tame EU with chips and whatever else. And EU... no idea.
Oh he certainly is. But he is eroding it. It's only just starting and the EU is only just starting to disconnect itself from the US. So right now he still has a lot of pull.
> You can't jail a company.
You can, however, use the death penalty. I imagine a fine equivalent to twice their market cap should suffice.
You can't jail a company, but you can jail a CEO.
Always talking about bigger pay because of bigger responsibility. Might finally start making sense if they actually start putting them in jails.
> considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.
This seems backwards. The reason they can't be broken up is because of the pressure that huge companies like this put on individuals in government.
No different than why a small town mayor can't jail the organized crime ring that runs his town. If he tries anything, they will shoot him; or at least put up posters all over town accusing him of being a pedophile (and pay somebody to file charges against him that will eventually be dismissed for lack of evidence.) He wouldn't have become mayor in the first place if they hadn't supported him and attacked his potential competitors.
You can jail decision makers that work in the company. You can also jail the CEO, if they are ready to accept those big salaries they should also be ready to accept consequences.
It's also not really desirable to punish a company or dissolve it. It's mostly made up of laborers - you can bet your ass C-Suite is gonna be A-Okay. Also, we don't really want to just burn the IP. That stuff is useful.
>Also, we don't really want to just burn the IP.
You absolutely want to burn the IP in the sense of make it freely available to use and build upon. Every time history has weakened IP protections for the few, the many have benefited.
A lot of the success after WW2 was the immense amount of patents that were no longer protected and could be built upon without 25 years of monopoly extraction. You can't rent seek something that isn't patent protected, so you have to build and improve.
For example, several German and Italian patents around good motorcycle engines were completely nulled out, and every company that built motorcycles made a popular model from it. It basically invented a portion of the industry.
The same elimination of patent protections after WW1 boosted tons of chemical industries, and spurned immense innovation in pharmaceuticals, dyes, explosives, etc.
"Oh you want to do illegal anti-competitive stuff? In addition to any fine, you have forfeited your IP benefits"
Breaking antitrust laws and similar is an explicit admission that you cannot compete fairly, and therefore it does not benefit society to let you continue to monopolize anything and someone else should be allowed to take your place.
> you can bet your ass C-Suite is gonna be A-Okay.
No but that's why it should be possible to hold them personally accountable IMO. I think them getting away with everything is what's wrong with the world these days.
Also, a company is a culture. Labourers will find another job. But probably in a company with a better culture. Which is good for them too.
Yeah I guess the "fix" would be legislating that such platforms require OS makers to provide an open market of software either by allowing manual installation or third party app stores.