ffhhttt

Presumably it would work similar to taxes on cigarettes, alcohol etc. by discouraging excessive consumption and making low CO2 alternatives much more attractive financially.

So the societal cost of banning private jets is approximately zero?

Why is it even worth discussing then?

Because the population will get much older (i.e. much less productive) before it gets much smaller. That going to cause all kinds of massive issues.

Presumably people occasionally still talk to each other

Then IMO they would be a monopoly on iOS in a similar way. You change the default search engine on Android too, most people don’t know how/don’t care/etc.

Now I’m not sure that something you could actually define as a monopoly but they do control almost the entire search market on mobile because they directly control Android and pay Apple huge amounts of money to achieve the same on Safari.

Perhaps (well.. almost certainly) that would disincentivize any of the companies in these industry from innovating at all (if you can’t gain any edge by additional investment since anything you do will be stolen you might as well start stealing if that cheaper).

This would also especially favor large mega corporations as long as they are efficient enough (due to obvious reasons).

So a page full of massive banners and popups?

How would that benefit most consumers?

If you make it clear to the court that you’re just willing to treat the fine as a tax and pay it indefinitely without having any intention of altering your behavior, I’m sure they’ll start imposing other penalties after some time

How would the search business be monetized?

> Internet Explorer came bundled with the OS and therefore had a leg up on the competition.

Isn’t Google doing the same by making their search engine default on Chrome, Android and even by paying Apple billions to make the default on Safari?

There is very little non-executive level employees can do to engage or not engage in monopolistic practices. All the decisions that lead to that are generally taken way above so such training would be pretty useless. Insider trading is very different in that regard because it’s something individuals can engage in and (usually) not the outcome of corporate strategy.

So executives, marketing people etc. can say that their products “will crush the competition” and that would be fine?

> Moron

Not so much because they might making some incorrect conclusions but because they don’t know when to keep their mouths shut.

> everyone else would now be more profitable with Unreal

To be fair only F2P games that makes less than ~$2 per user might be more profitable. For almost everyone else above the 1 million threshold Unity would still be cheaper.

> at .20c

Zero of them would be paying $0.2 per instal. Probably much closer to $0.03-0.05.

Nobody could ship games in the Switch using the personal edition and nobody who understands basic math would be paying $0.2 even after these prices go into effect

Why? IMHO it makes more sense for a public company.