third option is he sets up some kind of foundation or trust arrangement and testaments his shares to that trust, which is then run by board of trustees as per trust charter. Usually meaning “well board of trustees is entrusted to see to the continued profitable management of the company by selecting suitable new management as comes necessary” combined with possible whatever extra instructions there is as to how to and underwhat principles the company is to be run.

Be it either private trust to benefit the descendants/described beneficiaries or a charitable trust with funds to be used for charitable causes.

Family trusts aren’t that unheard of to exactly avoid the splintering of the ownership and thus risk take over bit by bit.

At some point you really do just have enough money.

Well there is people to whom no amount of money is enough money. Not that it is at that point about, what you can do with that money. Rather by then the amount of money is a leader board and score board all to it’s own. The desire to be Forbes number 1 and then to be forbes number 1 with ever increasing lead to the number 2.

However all indications are, Gabe Newell isn’t one of those people. He would have had plenty of opportunities to cash out and then do some other business dealings to get ever bigger score card number. Don’t really know exactly what else it would tell of him or his character, but the one thing we can pretty confidently tell is “it seems he isn’t about just singularly amassing ever growing pile of wealth as large as possible”. He would have had plenty opportunity to enrich himself way more aggressively and he didn’t.

When Gabe Newell at some point leaves Valve, the company will change, no matter if it stays private or goes public.

Depends how that happens. Since frankly I think people think “the way Gabe Newell leaves ownership of Valve is by him eventually dying”. Since he has never shown any indication to sell. He has offered shares to employees as part of compensation packages, but as I understand even then he has controlling share.

So ofcourse the most simplest way is “Gabe dies and has done no special arrangement”… shares go to inheritance to his family. So his wife and children. Which might mean nothing changes or everything changes. Maybe he has given private last wishes, maybe not. However they get to decide. They might decide to keep the company as is. Since given they are inheritors of Gabes fortune, not like they would be immediately hurting for cash.

Second option is… Gabe does actual official arrangements. This isn’t unheard of in case of big private family or personal companies or holdings. For example he might put his shares in a foundation or trust with legally binding last wishes unlike non legally binding personal last wishes. Then what happens is whatever the trust charter is. Given example of say some European industrialist foundadtions like Bosch, instructions are left to run the company as commercial business by board of managers to best benefit of the company finances. However the one option the holders don’t have is “sell the company”, since the shares are hold up in the foundation/trust with instructions “never sell”. Company is to be run profitable enterprise as his and best ability of managers and then… the trust gets the profits and uses them for it’s purposes. It might be a private family trust, where upon the money is then shared to Gabes descendants, but don’t really have say in “we want to cash out, just lump sell our shares”. It could also be as in case of Bosch, that it is charitable foundation. After which all of the business profits of the Bosch conglomerate end up financing various charities, foundations, clinics and so on run by the Bosch stifftung.

It will change no doubt, since well Gabe isn’t there anymore with his personal personality and well each person has their own personality and influence. However it might not change as much as people think, if say his heirs decide to keep running the company based on same base ethos and principles as Gabe did.

That or everything might change. Two days after he dies, his estate sells Valve to Electronic Arts.

Well the thing is … yes Valve has shareholding investors… Only one that matter as far as anyone knows is Gabe Newell. Given it’s private corp, they don’t have to publicly tell what his exact ownership is and I think it is known it isn’t anymore 100% unlike at some point. However all “as far as we know” indications are, Gabe Newell maintains 50%+ controlling shareholding. Rest of the shareholders as people understand are employees and ex employees, who got private shares as part of compensation packages.

We don’t have actual look at the books, but Valve people have on multiple occasion said “Valve doesn’t have external investors”. Given it was public official comments by official people, I would think they wouldn’t lie about it. So there is no external VCs or share external investor investors.

Gabe pretty much has probably pretty universal control only limited by business regulation and maybe whatever clauses the corporate charter has. However since he was at one point sole owner, I doubt it contains anything too much curtailing him. Since the way any other people have gotten shares is by Gabe agreeing to give them or sell them to people in the first place.

As far as I understand at no point has Valve been cash strapped such as to need to ask for external investors. Since it is company founded by two early ex-Microsoft people who had made decently money at Microsoft already before Founding Valve. Gabe ended as sole owner as the other founding owner decided to leave the business and Gabe bought him out.

Seems like a huge headache with stolen/lost phones, wonder how they handle revokation…

Right maybe should have clarified that. The authentication is facilitated by the trusted middle party aka phone company.

When you log in using this service, you tell using service your phone number. Well their contacted authentication handler (usually one of the phone operators), they forward the request to your operator, who knows to forward it to the phone (as I understand as a network service SMS, like how operators settings updates also get send to the SIM and phone), this service message is handed by the phone cellular interface to the SIM. SIM applet notices “oh this is authentication request”. It displays the session ID of authentication (generated at the original authentication session and displayed there also) and then asks to enter security code to approve (or decline the request)

As such revocation is two fold. First your operator will list the certificate/key invalid. Secondly, since operator is handling the message passing anyway, they know to refuse to send the authentication requests in the first place to the compromised SIM. since as the SIM, that also defines where to send the requests. It is both the independent crypto validation, but also the cell network subscriber identity. Compromised sim stops getting any requests, since it is shutout from cellular connection. Can’t make calls, can’t send and receive texts, since the sim isn’t anymore tied to valid subscriber contact.

Plus with crypto system there is always the option of official public revocation server. Which kind of system is what the national ID smart card system uses. Anyone accepting identifying by those signatures gets told “the official key/certificate/revocation server is this one. Regularly check it for listed revocations by the root trust authority”

i don’t agree that it keeps users locked in. convenience wise it should be alot easier with e-SIM, technically you should just be able to open up an app and install a new e-SIM and voila your on a new provider.

As long as the phone maker and the phone service company play nice. The whole point of physical sims is. “you break your phone screen and phone? You can literally in the minute borrow your buddy’s phone, slap your sim in it”.

Why would it matter? For example here in Finland we have this thing called The Mobile ID. Which is commercial high security identification method, that works on the SIM. It’s user interface is the phone, but the actually crypto and logging works on the SIM. Just as with PIN number, the phone is just keypad to tell the SIM the security code to unlock it and operate. Not only does it work on SIM, due to security it is tied to the SIM. Each ID is a cryptographic key living physically in the SIM. never to leave it. public-private key exchange between the authentication server and SIM. on first boot/activation, SIM generates in-situ the private key, sends the public key to phone company, normal registrations hand shakes. Only thing anyone else has is the publickey. they private key lives it’s live in the SIM and just on getting signatory request and then correct unlock PIN signs the request and sends it back.

Which again means in the “oh my phone broke” situation means I haven’t lost my mobile ID. Just yank the SIM out of the husk of the broken flagship expensive smart phone and slap it into the cheapest 30 euro “I make calls and send text” budget phone. Still works just as well. Any phone you find (that isn’t SIM locked) will work, since as said the ID is the SIM, the phone is just keypad interface.

Also physical external sim allows physical update of the crypto processor. with eSim, if there is hardware fault or vulnerability found with the eSim, you are toast. With physical sim? So sorry customer, there has been vulnerability wound with the Sim crypto. Do you come to visit nearest operator store to get your new sim for your phone or do you want it sent by mail. Specially on say long lasting equipment… It is a very good thing there is a physically exchangeable cryptographic component. Rest of the equipment isn’t toast, just because someone cracked the SIM crypto.

I really don’t think they should be dictating how companies must design their products.

Like say telling to automakers they must include this design feature called seat belt and this another design feature called airbag? Also EU isn’t dictating anything about the design. They are giving regulation on minimum technical features. How to design within that minimal technical requirement is free for the maker to decide. Just as say there is minimum technical regulation about safety of electric appliances in general.

Again poor, poor companies being told by the regulation they can’t use their favourite “design feature” of "exposed uninsulated power wirings " on their products.

Regulations have existed and will exist. Companies operate at the please of society offering them a market to operate in. Offering such things as contracts needing to be honored, people not just being allowed to steal their property, enjoying the protected relative piece of national military keeping the mongol horde away and so on. In exchange the businesses shall play by the rules society sets.

This matter was decided by the duly elected representatives of the EU citizenry (directly as the European Parliament and more indirectly the national democratically elected governments in the Council. Well except maybe governments of Hungary and Poland… … …). This is the will of the European society, so this stands.

Well some might. Then you are free to vote with wallet and move to the maker who still thinks water resistance and dust is good sell factor for phones. Market working like it’s supposed and so on. Within the guiding barriers market regulations.

It would have to be personal imports. Since the regulation concerns not just the manufacturer, but Any natural or legal person that places on the market product (that phrasing appears lot on the regulation 😆). So for example importers and distributors. A retail electronics shop is responsible to make sure they don’t offer on sale any new product with no replaceable battery. Obviously to their own amount of reasonable amount of responsibility. Retailer isn’t responsible to go check the product in detail for all the nitty gritty technical compliance, but they have to do due diligence from the manufacturer or importer on “and this product you offer us does fulfil EU regulations. You do have the spare batteries in offer like regulation demands, you plan to honor the 5 year offer period of spare batteries” and so on. Can’t be knowingly importing or retail selling non compliant products.

Well some sneaky legislative aide in EU already thought about that.

Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries or LMT batteries shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.

Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components.

Well battery shapes will be custom, but the regulation does include demand to offer said batteries as spare parts.

shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.

This being EU, EU will actually even police that reasonability clause via consumer protection agencies. You might not like the still probably pretty hefty price, but outright monopoly price gouging will not be allowed. Atleast not with in EU jurisdiction. Also makers will tend to gravitate to number of pretty standard battery sizes and geometries. Simply out of economies of scale. If you have to offer the batteries available as spares. You don’t want to offer 150 different battery models on you warehousing and supply to your retail stores. You want as few as possible. Maybe say 5 different sizes or maybe couple ten different kinds on the biggest makers with the largest product range. Cheaper to buy more of similar batteries from battery supplier, than have custom module developed for each new phone model. Well unless one is apple and only has couple new models per year. They probably will have now just little bit different optimized shape battery for each models, but they also have the scale per model to make sense for that.

also:

Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components.

Meaning companies can’t use software locks to deny third party batteries. Since the language says compatible battery, not replacement battery. Which wouldn’t make sense anyway, since replacement battery would be the one the OEM offers. Ofcourse I’m sure there will be lot of hurdur by makers over “don’t use third party batteries, those aren’t as safe” and “well but that isn’t compatible”. However as one remembers during the early 2000’s and upto mid 2010’s there was a very healthy both OEM and third party replacement battery market. As with that experience, yes shoddy batteries from non-reputable people can be problem. However in this basic consumer electronic safety regulation (aka you can’t just shovel anything to the market with utterly nuts unsafe circuitry in the first place) and the market itself handles it. Again it will be found out over little time, which makers are the reputable ones with the good batteries with all the proper safeties and good production quality. Reputable big chain electronics dealers then focus on only offering the established reputable third party batteries and parts out of their own reputation (You sold me a shoddy battery. It burst and ruined my phone. I’m never buying from this phone store ever again). Plus same with the actual makers with stuff like offering extensive warranties, warranting the replacement of the device, if their battery messes it up and so on.

This is all “we have already been here” ground except instead of the T9 numpad on the phone front, there is now a whole front covering touch screen on it’s place.

Not really. Expect in that obviously many of the exact current water resistant phone design can’t be used. Since those don’t have replaceable battery. However already at this very moment there is smart phones on the market with both replaceable battery and water resistance. Like Samsung Xcover6 pro . Not that it is the only one, but example from the major brands instead of the more niche rugged phone specialist brands. In fact in my experience in the rugged phone market replaceable battery is quite common (and thus apparently desired by customers) feature. I assume on the rugged phone user segment liking the ruggedness of “I can continue the lifespan with new battery” and even “Well I’m going to middle of no where wilderness, spare battery might not be stupid idea”.

In opposite to the hurdurhurdur can’t make water and dust resistant phone with battery covers. Yes we can. We figured this out by early 2000’s. Touch screens on the other side of the phone taking place from the old numeric T9 pad doesn’t change the design fundamentals of the back of the chassis. Rigid enough cover plate with rigid enough pressure applying latching combined with rubber seal designed and molded to seal the desired areas will do the job exactly 2027 as well as those did in 2002.

As said all it takes is a redesign job with the battery swapping idea being kept in mind from start on the chassis design. Maybe it means couple mill thicker phones, since the phone isn’t a single glued together slab from front display glass to the back cover glass, so it isn’t rigid by being single monolith resign block essentially. However as far as the massively bulky thick rugged phones, all phones aren’t headed there. That is about impact resistance instead of water or dust resistance. Thick layers of metal and rubber both to withstand and to soften impact.