Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments (and the span of control they have over people’s lives) I do not believe this analogy can be used for any useful inference.
It’s almost as if this example with app stores is an incredibly specific, narrow example, and government control in this way is incredibly broad in impact (I.e. life or death, end of the actual world etc).
Did any of that make any sense?
I disagree with that line. I feel like people are desperate for there to be a difference based on some 9th grade civics class, or because an animated anthropomorphic piece of paper sang to them about bills in elementary school.
The British East India company had the power to jail and kill, for centuries.
The Head of the Executive Branch is the CEO of government agencies.
Anything is possible.
The statement was written with the lens of very different goals (corporations maximize profit within the context of selling goods and services where governments - usually, serve the people sufficiently to maintain control & power over its people by being “great leaders”).
Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do. Corporations also rarely have militaries nor are the final backstop for when disagreements occur.
Your example is interesting because it compares probably the most government like corporation to ever exist (the Dutch East India Company) and the most “nurfed” head of state by most metrics to ever exist (I.e. the least powerful relative to power of the nation - the American President, while being the head of the largest economically and most powerful country, role by role is quite restricted and limited in scope and control by design of the founding fathers).
And yet in the U.S., your health care and pension is often tied to your employment at a corporation. For some people, for example those on work visa, having employment in a particular corporation is tied to living in the same country.
Vice versa, a democratic government has less control over your life than you might think.
And if we look at things like free speech - I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult.
What do you mean by this?
Google is a smoking pile of dumpster fires filled with turds.
Should I now expect Google agents to come to my house and disappear my family and I?
> Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies"
It was not. It did not answer to Parliament, only to its shareholders. It has the best of both worlds though, because many powerful MPs were shareholders. So they got govt protection without govt oversight.
1) Head of Executive branch is limited by law (constitution, etc). CEO is not limited
2) The Raison d'être of government, at least de iure, is to do good for its citizens, while the raison d'être of corporation is to make money.
That makes them very different - not a lot of people would object to removal of nonproductive employees or customers, but many would (I hope!) object removal (through whatever means) of "nonproductive" citizens.
If it has the power to jail and kill, that'll make it much more like a government than you like to admit.
US slave trading firms were government agencies folks.
I'm sure we can find some modern example if we dig deep enough.
The enormous power that these two global corporations - Apple and Google - have over the livelihoods of so many developers and content producers is unprecedented. Each of them can wipe out the value of your professional skills over night.
For many people these corporations are without alternative. It's no longer a voluntary business relationship.
In Apple's case, the side-loading ban interacts with authoritarian government in a way that clearly threatens human rights. But at least on that particular issue consumers still have a choice.
Are the big Chinese tech companies independent of their government? And are the US companies exploring bidding for tiktok etc doing so because the US government is coercing them?
The only appropriate response really is to close markets to Chinese companies until they open up theirs (without unreasonable restrictions on free speech).
Do you not think that the second half of that period, when Trump has been president, that he may have contributed to the problem by providing an opportuniy for Xi Jinping?
I don't deny that Trump has potentially enabled Xi to make some moves faster and bolder. But those moves would likely have happened anyway and on the bright side it's maybe easier for the world to see what's going with the lies being so obvious nowadays.
I think the aggressive stance of China coincides with the election of Xi Jinping in 2013, seven years ago. Trump has been in power for 3.5 years, so that's half of this time period. So it certainly _could_ be something to do with Trump.
My question was whether if would have been _such_ a failure.
It seems to me that both Trump and Xi Jinping have benefitted from the trade wars and diplomatic arguments between the countries. There seems little doubt that the Trump administration has given Xi Jinping a window of opportunity where he has been able to consolidate power and conduct aggressive foreign policy... so I genuinely wonder: how important has Trump's disastrous leadership been in the failure of this policy?
No, putting up your own barriers doesn't help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_smoot_tariff_act
Barriers are barriers, it doesn't matter who put them up, you should do your best to reduce them.
Edit: ‘equivalent‘ should be ‘comparable’... obviously the OP is not saying they are equivalent.
A mobile phone is not a 'luxury' - it's almost an essential good these days.
Even without that, an iPhone doesn't meet the criteria of 'luxury good'. It's just a little more expensive.
Android and iOS have an important market locked down, it's time for some basic regulation.
I have a 200€ xiaomi phone (redmi note 4) that works very well and I have little to no complaints.
An iPhone costed 4-5 times that amount when I bought my phone, and does essentially the same things. But it's shinier.
Yes, the iPhone is a luxury good.
Edit, just to clarify: I have used an iPhone for an extended period of time (company issued): yes, the iPhone pretty much does the same thing as an android phone, maybe a little less.
A more specific definition [1]
FYI there are tons of mobiles in the iPhone price range.
Ferraris, yachts, bespoke suits, exclusive trips to Antartica, private engagements with former Presidents, a closet full of Gucci - luxury goods.
Due to the sophisticated nature of mobile tech, there are really no such thing as 'luxury goods' in that category, because he market size would be far too small to support the massive R&D effort. Which is why Bang & Olufsun don't make phones.
Of course Apple definitely takes cues from luxury good makers in their marketing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods#:~:text=In%20econ....
No.
We don't need bizzaro metaphors when the situation is easy to discuss on its own terms.