For somebody that makes the median income, of about $50k, this is a fine of $273 for years of largescale systematic abusive behavior, done for profit.
I feel like fines aren't even an appropriate remedy for this. They're both inherently arbitrary and not something that actually fixes it. And that combination gives governments a perverse incentive, because they get $2B to put in their own pockets while leaving the monopolist to continue monopolizing so they can come back and extract more later instead of actually solving it.
What they should be doing is breaking up companies that do this sort of thing.
Suddenly we could buy macos to run in a VM.
Or we could buy iPhones running android.
Which, given my feelings about iOS 26, might be a good thing. I mean, if their revenue depends on the OS actually being good rather than inevitable…
This right here is why they need to be broken up. Are we supposed to have a company more powerful than a country?
Investors are "one share, one vote", rather than democracy "one person, one vote". The recent thing with Musk/Tesla and his trillion dollar options is being voted on, and Apple face campaigns and have votes, too: https://apnews.com/article/apple-dei-shareholder-proposal-an...
That depends how big it is. For something the size of the US, sure, and that's a problem. It's one of the reasons the central government was meant to have limited powers.
For something the size of a small town or local business, absolutely not, because then each vote both matters more to the outcome and has more direct consequences to the voter, which dramatically lowers the coordination costs. A single individual could change the outcome just by convincing a small number of local people who are each more inclined to care about it.
You say things like 'free markets are wonderful and efficient and we don't believe that they lead to the kind of outcomes that people who have come up with terms like "capitalism" believe they will'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_(supermarket)
Also, one party being stronger doesn't mean fighting them is worthwhile, e.g. Iceland threatening to withdraw from NATO to win the Cod Wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
And and, also why the People's Republic of China hasn't taken control of the Republic of China after all this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
But censorship laws and antitrust laws are two different things. It's possible for the same country to get one thing wrong while simultaneously getting a different thing right.
On top of that, giant bureaucracies are great at "compliance". That isn't the same as doing the thing you actually wanted though.
To achieve the thing you wanted, word the law vaguely and have a judge interpret it. You know, the same way the law is applied to poors like you and me. Nobody gets off a murder by saying "Your Honour, when I stabbed that man to death, technically I didn't meet the criteria in point 3 subsection 12 and therefore I am innocent." Why should corporations get that privilege? (I note they may be found innocent of murder but guilty of something like manslaughter - which is fine! Different degrees of violation of the law can result in greater or lesser sentences. Proportionality is a good thing. Apple should only have to pay half the fine if the judge estimates they've done half what they should)
That's what breaking them up is. "Stop being a monopoly" is breaking them up.
Leaving them in one piece and trying to pass a separate rule against every monopolistic practice they can come up with while they remain in one piece is an exercise in futility.
> Nobody gets off a murder by saying "Your Honour, when I stabbed that man to death, technically I didn't meet the criteria in point 3 subsection 12 and therefore I am innocent." Why should corporations get that privilege?
Some people do, in fact, e.g. because the evidence was seized unlawfully and the government's penalty for that is not getting to use it, or because the charges were filed in the wrong jurisdiction etc. This is why rich people often get away with things -- they have money to pay lawyers to trawl through thousands of pages of regulations to find the mistake the government made or bamboozle the jury or the court. See e.g. O.J. Simpson.
But the problem in cases like this is much harder than that, because there is no murder without a body. It isn't a normal thing to be having to decide if the person who killed someone is guilty of murder because it isn't a normal thing to be the person who killed someone.
Whereas it is a normal thing for companies to sell things for money and enter into contracts etc. Which means you're not trying to decide if they did something wrong in an outrageous event that happens zero times in the median person's life, you're trying to decide if they did something wrong in any of the millions of transactions they take part in every day.
Is requiring a fee or the use of an identification service in order to publish an app just recovering their costs, or is it a ploy to inhibit people from doing it? Is preventing third party software from performing certain system functions a security measure, or a means to prevent competitors making an app store that actually functions properly?
You can't be getting into the weeds like that or their lawyers will eventually come up with something the government accepts as the former while it still has the effect of the latter. You have to remove the structural incentive they have to do it to begin with, which comes from these separate products all being tied together within the same company.
Reaction from the US government would be swift and extreme, especially with this administration. 1000% tariffs on British exports or something like that...
But even under a normal/sane administration, doing something like this to an US tech megacorp would be unfeasible without a backlash that would outweigh any benefits.
Also, putting aside whether the UK could actually break them up, the US or the EU could actually break them up.
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.
Exactly, 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?
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.
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).
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.
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).
You can, however, use the death penalty. I imagine a fine equivalent to twice their market cap should suffice.
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.
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.
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.
Comparing against their UK revenue is probably a better metric ?
Devs voluntarily choose to publish apps on the App Store and doing so gets them both another discovery channel and a low-friction sales channel. Stores being robbed by shoplifters don't voluntarily enter that arrangement and they get no benefit from it.
But at a fundamental level, they are breaking the law to extract money from people. You may not call that stealing, but imho it's not a huge stretch of reality.
So what difference does it make to the regular joe that the loan shark got shook down by the mafia boss ?
For most companies, the choice is: pay Apple, or dissolve your company.
That's not much of a choice, and I think we all know it.
This is like saying that every American can choose to trash their car and take public transit. It sounds like a choice, but the real world has consequences and in fact most Americans do not have the ability to eschew private transport. That is just simply not how the world works.
Laws apply to jurisdictions, there are no universal laws which are legally binding.
Even if it is illegal, it is for them to collect their own fines for that crime .
Or % of market cap would also be good.
If not, you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Whereas Apple’s profit figure reflects their total profit across all products and all markets combined.
It’s meaningless comparing these, because it’s not an equal basis of comparison.
If that's the case then using their total profit seems the only proper measure. What it says is that these companies lose these cases but it's so infrequent that they can just price it in. It's a cost of doing business.
If we were to fine Tim Cook 1000$ for doing something that paid him 1M would that have the 'effect' of keeping him from doing that again?
Other than that I agree with you - the fine doesn't make much of a difference unless the risk becomes so significant that it effectively threatens the jobs of people not to address it, and it will only threaten jobs if it becomes more expensive to continue ignoring these laws than paying fines if/when individual countries take them to court.