> I assume your argument invoking Android as a model wasn’t in bad faith, and I can certainly dismiss the conclusions of it in good faith too, because it is inapplicable as a model.
Why is it inapplicable? Because Google is behind it instead of Apple?
> And no - I don’t have to provide examples of where Facebook, Microsoft etc, have already “caused trouble”.
Then you have no evidence substantiating your claims.
> Neither are known as friends of either developers or consumers, although I accept that Microsoft has been doing better since they have been an underdog.
You are bringing moral weight into this discussion, which is fine. However, I would not be willing to assign any additional moral weight to Apple either. It does not do to assume any company- especially one in the same realm of financial success- is particularly more virtuous or honest than others, nor incapable of predatory business tactics of its own.
> What I am not in favor of is Epic winning a court supervised solution
And that is the crux. I do not favor Epic, but I recognize that they are the first to put skin in the game as far as grousing over App Store policies go. They are a necessary evil in terms of forcing Apple's leadership to recognize that App Store policy is worth a reexamination. Without a challenge, Apple management is content to pursue its present course without recognition that there is indeed a world outside of Cupertino. They have perhaps the highest market cap of any corporation in history- they're no underdog in this tale. But I also don't care about Epic in the context of this discussion. We can map out ways in which Apple could open up iOS without dragging in Epic's legal demands into this.
> I actually strongly believe we need the smartphone software environment to be opened, but the path by which that occurs and the nature of the openness obtained is very important to whether there is a net gain for anyone other than the already rich and powerful.
This whole “you have no evidence to substantiate your claim thing” is empty. The evidence is plainly there in present normal competitive behavior. That’s all that is needed.
Google is not a model for what would happen if Apple was forced to open the App Store.
There are two reasons for this. One is that Google isn’t the app market leader and so the pressures aren’t there.
The other is that secondary app stores are basically crippled on Android by comparison to the play store, which is why Epic is also suing google.
It just isn’t comparable, so you can’t use it as an example of what would happen.
I’m not bringing moral weight really. I think Apple provides a lot of benefits to users and developers.
I think we ultimately need a more open environment where what people can install is not controlled by Apple.
However I just don’t believe that the competitors who want access to Apple’s customers have any incentive to maintain an open marketplace or to serve developers.
They have every incentive to fight bitterly and use their own assets of one kind or another to lock-up parts of that market and to try to monopolize it just as Apple has.
That just isn’t going to be good for developers.
If Epic’s grousing leads to better terms from Apple, with Apple still in control, then I’d agree that it was ultimately a win for everyone (even including Apple).
If on the other hand we get a court mandated soliton, or anti-trust action, I think we’ll end up further away from a truly open, competitive environment than ever.
All the air will be sucked out of that possibility into what will effectively be a government authorized cartel.
> There are two reasons for this. One is that Google isn’t the app market leader and so the pressures aren’t there.
And yet, the Play Store is still the dominant app market within the Android ecosystem despite Google's lackadaisical caretaking of it (leading to security and quality issues). This situation would only be heightened in an opened iOS situation, because Apple would still maintain control as is its wont, and because most consumers would be fine staying with the App Store.
> The other is that secondary app stores are basically crippled on Android by comparison to the play store, which is why Epic is also suing google.
Which is a situation that could likely repeat in a (semi-)open iOS for any number of reasons, Epic's legal adventures notwithstanding.
> It just isn’t comparable, so you can’t use it as an example of what would happen.
I disagree. Even if it doesn't exactly repeat, it's likely very similar to it. Ultimately, iOS and Android are more similar than different in that they were both created and promoted by a single business entity. We're not talking about an ecosystem launched by a secondary less powerful company (webOS) or an open source project (Firefox OS, Ubuntu Mobile).
> I think we ultimately need a more open environment where what people can install is not controlled by Apple.
We agree on that.
> If on the other hand we get a court mandated soliton, or anti-trust action, I think we’ll end up further away from a truly open, competitive environment than ever.
All the air will be sucked out of that possibility into what will effectively be a government authorized cartel.
I think given the anemic nature of antitrust action in this country over the past few decades, this is likely politically infeasible, a doomsday scenario bordering on hysteria. Hence, we arrive full-circle: scaremongering.
Why is it inapplicable? Because Google is behind it instead of Apple?
> And no - I don’t have to provide examples of where Facebook, Microsoft etc, have already “caused trouble”.
Then you have no evidence substantiating your claims.
> Neither are known as friends of either developers or consumers, although I accept that Microsoft has been doing better since they have been an underdog.
You are bringing moral weight into this discussion, which is fine. However, I would not be willing to assign any additional moral weight to Apple either. It does not do to assume any company- especially one in the same realm of financial success- is particularly more virtuous or honest than others, nor incapable of predatory business tactics of its own.
> What I am not in favor of is Epic winning a court supervised solution
And that is the crux. I do not favor Epic, but I recognize that they are the first to put skin in the game as far as grousing over App Store policies go. They are a necessary evil in terms of forcing Apple's leadership to recognize that App Store policy is worth a reexamination. Without a challenge, Apple management is content to pursue its present course without recognition that there is indeed a world outside of Cupertino. They have perhaps the highest market cap of any corporation in history- they're no underdog in this tale. But I also don't care about Epic in the context of this discussion. We can map out ways in which Apple could open up iOS without dragging in Epic's legal demands into this.
> I actually strongly believe we need the smartphone software environment to be opened, but the path by which that occurs and the nature of the openness obtained is very important to whether there is a net gain for anyone other than the already rich and powerful.
I agree with that.