Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have? Because the alternative to what Epic want (so the current situation) isn't a completely open platform but one where Apple is the only boss and can do almost whatever they want. Having more bosses in competition for parts of the market is an improvement toward a more open system.
We've seen on Android that the practical effects of competing app stores are basically zero. There's too much advantage to controlling the OS and being the default. Epic getting a store on iOS is likely to be a moral victory at best.
The effective solution is stopping dominance in one area from spilling over into another. Can't use iOS control to gain control of app sales and you can't use control of app sales to gain control of payments.
The fact that F-Droid exists is a huge deal. Yeah, not everyone uses it. There isn't an app for everything (by design) but the apps are way more trustworthy than anything you can get out of the iOS or Android stores.
Let’s say competing app stores won’t be used. Then why is it an issue for Apple to allow them, given that they know they would still be the default and have the advantage? Apple is in this situation at where control the platform completely, and could have the default store. But somehow that’s not enough for them to consider opening the app market a little bit.
Using that reasoning, they are in the best position to actually open to competition.
Google has been closing down Android with each release exactly because that gets abused.
To the point that Linux fans that keep pointing to Android as "Desktop Linux" miss the point that no Linux APIs are part of official Android APIs and depending on the Android version, apps get killed when trying to be smart reaching for private APIs.
> Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have?
I think Epic getting what they want will slowly hollow out the available market for smaller indie developers who can't compete with with the scale of the big boys. Insofar as Apple's app store falls short, it's often in the various ways it fails at providing a truly even playing field between Joe Random and the Amazons and Epics of the world. Take the Apple intermediation out of it and the big stores can bring the strength of their reputations and the scale of their logistical capabilities to bear in ways that will make it much more difficult for small, independent developers to thrive.
You can see it in comparing the iOS app economy to the Android one. Even though the vast majority of app installs in Android come through the Play store, the more lax standards and availability of sideloading seems to make people much less trustful of anything they get and, consequently, much less likely to spend any money.
I think it will just offer alternative places where you might get attention that you otherwise wouldn't. Apple already has extremely restrictive and garbage discovery mechanisms on the App Store, and up until now has squashed all app-based attempts to make it better or provide an alternative discovery mechanism.
If alternatives were allowed to exist, those stores could be built with better discovery mechanisms or allow a smaller pond where you might be able to be the big fish.
As opposed to a vast ocean (App Store) where you've got to be damn lucky or have major connections to be anything more than a minnow as an independent.
> I'm not sure what you want to say here
That the Apple platform with the store model has significant disadvantages.