[apatheticonion]

I'm talking about provisions to increase competition in the free market - not classical "corporations bad" regulations.

Companies like Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon and Microsoft thrive off competition barriers.

For example;

Why is Asahi Linux on the MacBook not daily drivable? Because we can't write drivers and require non-scalable geniuses to reverse engineer hardware from photos of circuit boards.

Why can't you install an alternative to Android or iOS on your phone? Because we can't write drivers and/or the hardware blocks you from even trying.

Preventing monopolies from ring-fencing empowers the free market through competition enablement. Ultimately, it's impractical to tell us non Americans that you need to build a hardware and software stack entirely from scratch and have that be competitive within a few years.

Without those barriers - perhaps the EU would have a homegrown mobile operating system. Perhaps Linux desktop adoption would be bostered enough to justify further investment in OSS initiatives.

[bethekidyouwant]

Your android phone is made by Koreans.

[apatheticonion]

Yes, anti competitive practices are good for business regardless of geography.

Americans may be the biggest offenders but the pro-competition rules should apply to all.

Personally, I have the skills and interest to write a custom OS for my phone (Linux, custom DE, and waydroid for Android compat) - but it's literally impossible to due to anti competitive practices (I can't reverse engineer drivers and clean room driver development is practically impossible).

Similar story for my router, my "smart" TV and arm64 MacBook pro (or even an arm64 surface laptop).

[type0]

My Android phone is made by Chinese and all the patents are held by Americans