That is my argument:
Society should benefit from lower distribution costs.
Rather than allow monopolists charging huge economic rents.
I really don't think that you are going to find anyone that will disagree with you on either point. I feel the question, instead, is how do you achieve both. Am I not right?
Like seriously, you want "society to benefit from lower distribution costs" - and I don't have anything against this. But, how do you achieve this? How do you implement it? Or, what is the best way to do it. I think those are viable questions.
Why do I ask about or look to see what someone's response to Epic vs Google, as opposed to, Epic v Apple is? To me, I feel it reveals whether they're interested in an actual solution vs a solution that while, very well intentioned, leads to a worse outcome. A sort of "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" type of situation or something analogous to that idiom.
If the situation has gotten so bad that Apple feels it realistically doesn't actually have change its behavior, at all, even after being told it has to by the judge,
then why is that?
Sure, that could be politics. Maybe Apple feels it's paid off the right people or that it'll ultimately find sympathy from the appellate or supreme court, under the current administration, where it didn't have said sympathy under the initial review (which was under the former US administration).But, I don't think so.
Realistically I'd say that it is likely because it doesn't have any good competition. Who is its current competition? Google and Android. Which -- doesn't ostensibly operate its mobile platform the same way. Since, they do allow 3rd party app stores and sideloading, right? Obviously, yes they do.
So I have to ask -- why are businesses not taking advantage of either to, as you say, "lower their distribution costs"?Android is 70-80% of the worldwide mobile phone market. So it's not like Google is fighting an uphill battle against Apple for market share. Neither are developers having to develop for an unpopular platform. So, lets count this up: 1) developing for Android gets you naturally a larger market 2) the ability to keep far more of the revenue per app for yourself. And, 3) (most importantly, I'd think) Not having to deal with the hassle around getting initial app approval, app updates, or arbitrary removal or delisting.
So why do developers feel the need to play Apples game and deal with that hassle when they and, likewise, consumers should benefit from 1, 2, and 3?
Well, I feel I know why. You'll hate this: I don't fell that the problem is Apple. Rather, Apple's behavior is just a symptom of a larger problem.
So again, why do I ask about someone's reaction to Epic vs Google? Well, the end result of Epic vs Google was that a jury found Google guilty on all alleged claims from Epic. (
Edit:
Google, not Epic, asked for the Jury trial, by the way) That jury more or less said, "Google engaged in anti-competitive practices both with the Play Store and its related billing system, and [unreasonably] maintained its monopoly through how it made deals with partners using its dominant position in the overall technology market."
Or to put it another way: Google deliberately hamstrung 3rd party app stores so they couldn't make a difference and lacked the most popular and most sought after mobile apps. And while, yes, they offer side-loading to make the tech dweebs happy it's completely impractical for any business to use to distribute there applications. Which is text-book anti-competition and abusive monopoly maintenance. (yea, a monopoly is not illegal -- instead it's the actions taken to maintain the monopoly that are examined for unreasonableness or illegality)
Bluntly put: The 3rd Party App stores and sideloading that everyone praises Google for allowing --
it's just optics. A smokescreen.
Where as Apple (at least, initially) came out practically unharmed because they weren't really maintaining
their monopoly --
Google was. It's not that there was
collusion between the two. But, Apple just got to take advantage of the market benefit of Google's own self-interest.
Even more simply put, Apple's behavior is
enabled by Google's actual unreasonable maintenance of its monopoly. Now I can absolutely get that you might say, that there should be rules, regulations, or law prohibiting Apple's conduct regardless of Google. But, what's really better some hamfisted legislation that, ultimately, egomaniacal businesses and CEOs are just going to argue around or work around, ultimately still harming the consumer. Or, actually putting true existential pressure on Apple from competition that will eat them alive if they don't change their tune?
Very few developers and publishers will want to deal with the commission, or rules, or hassle of Apple's App Store if they have viable alternatives that will actually net them more "end of the day" take home pay.
In other words, why can't Apple lockout / lockdown and harass developers and publishers with their laptops and desktop Mac computers the same way they can in the mobile handset market place? It's not a lack of laws or regulations or rules ... It's just that they flat-out wouldn't exist if they did so.
This is why I think, all your fervor and rhetoric should really be directed against Google.
