Apple doesn't have to use fear, threats, or constantly fabricate boogeyman scenarios to keep their customer base loyal and filling their coffers. On the other hand, Apple doesn't have to deal with the massive number of thankless tasks that governments have to deal with.
Just the constant flood of trolls demanding they fix the laptop keyboards, make an xMac, get rid of the "Apple Tax", etc, ad nauseam.
While all three have large market capitalisations and healthy revenue - only two could be considered to possess large enough share to create a monopoly over their relevant field.
There are also other problems with the idea as a concept since a call to investigate and potentially break up these companies is a duplication of what is already possible through the judicial system. A system which allows for deep investigation as a result of a legitimately lobbied claim/s, rather than merely trying to score political points by pre-announcing the idea as if there is inaction on existing complaints. (There is plenty of action on existing claims against companies such as Google and Facebook, and not just in the USA.)
Meanwhile the US government seems rather in favour of significant, but likely detrimental, mergers such as the TMobile and Sprint merger, and had also permitted AT&T to merge together the companies which were split away as a result of the breakup of the Bell System.
Perhaps they should address some of these obvious flaws and target companies based on a history of nefarious activities rather than the catch all "is it big"?
I am all for stopping Apple's monopolist practices by opening up iOS to third party app stores but breaking up Apple would destroy it. The one thing America has going for it is strong tech companies. Bernie's plan could put an end to that.
Sure! Apple could open up iOS to what would become the iOS malware store, second only to Google's infested store.
Apple isn’t a monopoly, socialists. People choose Apple products not because they have to but because they want to.
Anti-trust law nothing to do with socialism. Apple simply isn't a monopoly and the candidates don't seem to understand that; insanely big and profitable doesn't equal monopoly. Tariffs on the other hand are socialist, as are subsidies for farms and coal.
I am all for stopping Apple's monopolist practices by opening up iOS to third party app stores but breaking up Apple would destroy it. The one thing America has going for it is strong tech companies. Bernie's plan could put an end to that.
There are other ways to distribute function to iOS outside the app store it's called a web app. It's been there since the start and it's become a better option each and every release. It could get vastly better in a year or with WebAssembly type initatives.
The market has generally avoided this but that doesn't mean doesn't exist and wouldn't be a good level of function for vast numbers of Apps and Services.
Yes, Break up Apple and it would certainly help competition except that the competition it helps would be mostly dudes like …Huawei , Samsung, Xiaomi, and hundreds Asian tech companies etc plus tens of dozens more in Europe (all heavily helped, subsidized, protected by tariffs by their own governments). They would be be laughing their heads off.
Do people believe a WEAKER Apple can so easily fend of Huawei or Samsung?
Breaking up Apple, USA’s largest taxpayer, does almost nothing for USA but helps Americas rivals around the world.
It does strike me as a "Careful what you wish for" move.
Apple could break up into a number of overseas subsideries (if they aren't already) and makes, stuff, jobs, revenue and tax receipts for other counties instead.
Apple isn’t a monopoly, socialists. People choose Apple products not because they have to but because they want to.
Anti-trust law nothing to do with socialism. Apple simply isn't a monopoly and the candidates don't seem to understand that; insanely big and profitable doesn't equal monopoly. Tariffs on the other hand are socialist, as are subsidies for farms and coal.
Tariffs run contrary to free markets, but they are not inherently socialistic. They are protectionist. In the hands of this President, they are leverage for bare-knuckle negotiations. He has stated on numerous occasions that the ideal outcome of such negotiations would be no tariffs.
Never allow a person, who hasn't ever built anything; tell you he can run everything.
Dumb comment. Bernie has built quite a following and been serving in the gov't for decades fighting the good fight for all Americans, unlike 95% of the gov't on both sides of the aisle who are all bought and paid for. As the longest running independent we should all unite behind him.
Comments
But everything else you said was spot on.
There are also other problems with the idea as a concept since a call to investigate and potentially break up these companies is a duplication of what is already possible through the judicial system. A system which allows for deep investigation as a result of a legitimately lobbied claim/s, rather than merely trying to score political points by pre-announcing the idea as if there is inaction on existing complaints. (There is plenty of action on existing claims against companies such as Google and Facebook, and not just in the USA.)
Meanwhile the US government seems rather in favour of significant, but likely detrimental, mergers such as the TMobile and Sprint merger, and had also permitted AT&T to merge together the companies which were split away as a result of the breakup of the Bell System.
Perhaps they should address some of these obvious flaws and target companies based on a history of nefarious activities rather than the catch all "is it big"?
Anti-trust law nothing to do with socialism. Apple simply isn't a monopoly and the candidates don't seem to understand that; insanely big and profitable doesn't equal monopoly. Tariffs on the other hand are socialist, as are subsidies for farms and coal.
Did you read, and think about, the original?