I understand the sentiment, but your government you can actually fix by voting.

If Apple (or another large international company) suffers from decreasing margins, gets a new CEO and decides to turn the data it sits on into money there is absolutely nothing you can do, and you might in fact still stay a "forced" customer because of network effects (=> just consider whatsapp being an important communication channel in many places worldwide).

I think this attitude in general is often harmful; if your government sucks, fix the government instead of making yourself dependent on some quasi-monopolist private company.

▲

eastbound 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You can fix companies by voting a government too. In fact, governments are quicker at fixing companies than themselves.

	▲	myrmidon 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> You can fix companies by voting a government too Indirectly only. This is typically also always too late; instead of doing "the right thing" in the first place, companies are disincentivized by regulation from doing "bad things" again. Regulations are like scar tissue, they don't help against getting burnt in the first place. Preemptive regulation typically sucks, and is admittedly extremely difficult to get right; most governments don't even bother trying. Corporation know this and exploit it ruthlessly-- there are almost never consequences as long as they keep to the letter of the law, even when acting with intent, against better knowledge and causing astronomical damage to society (just consider the whole leaded gas disaster for an extremely clear example).
	▲	segfaltnh an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sure but even when it works it slower and less total than good policy. Of course, good policy is a rare bird, too.