We're a nation of laws, so it would apply to all of them too.

Of course, in some of these cases, it only increases the stranglehold. Because now no one else can be a large app distribution platform and an app dev for instance. (Think about it, Steam and Epic would have to really think about the way forward.) Or, famously, for Netflix, no one else can distribute video and create video. So Disney would be forced to license their stuff to Netflix. The only reason Netflix started creating content in the first place was because the creators wouldn't license their content to Netflix. So now Netflix can dump all of that content creation, confident that content creators will be forced to license their offerings to Netflix. Not only that, Netflix can be confident in the knowledge that large content creators would never be allowed to go into distribution.

So Valve Software would no longer be allowed to distribute Dota 2 through Steam? Most of the people I know who installed Steam were drawn there by Dota 2, CS, Half Life, Portal or Left 4 Dead (all Valve titles). In this case, the third party sellers directly benefited from the user base who were drawn to the platform.

Who really benefits if Valve stops developing games?

Who says that the company running Steam must be the same company that adds new hats to TF2? Valve could easily be split into two companies. It might even force the gamemaker Valve to come up with some new games, which AFAICS they largely stopped doing in recent years.

Having said that, Valve would probably be way below the 25-billion-dollar revenue threshold that Warren proposes.

> AFAICS

You see incorrectly. Valve has released Underlords (doing well) and Artifact (doing badly) in the last 7 months, while also continually updating Dota 2 and reaching an all time high in quality.

Why would they be forced to license to Netflix specifically? They could still only license to other platforms who offered them better conditions.

If they license to one distribution utility, and not the other, then they are in violation by trying to vertically integrate. (The legal term would be "cartel".)

It's like American Sugar. It's not only when you have your own stores, it's also illegal if you only sell to certain stores. Basically, American Sugar had to sell to all stores without discrimination. Anything short of that means that you are still in the business of distribution. So in Netflix terms, it means that whatever deal that, say, Hulu or Amazon Prime gets, Netflix would get too. Or else Disney is colluding with Hulu to skirt their restriction on being a distributor.

For businesses like Netflix, plans like Warren's are music to their ears. I bet creating all that content is a huge part of their costs. Now they can dump all of that, and acquire content at the same terms as all their competitors.

Right, but those equal terms can still be quite expensive, essentially forcing those platforms into a bidding match. If Amazon can afford $100M and Netflix only $80M, Disney can offer their catalog to anyone for $100M, and Netflix would be unable to afford it.

But it would be brain dead for Netflix to not take the deal. If the base cost of everyone is going to be USD100M, then everyone's base cost is USD100M. The law would also require Amazon to give Netflix the same access to its networking platform that it gives its own divisions. (In fact, by my understanding of this whole "platform utility" thing, I'm pretty sure Amazon Prime would have to split from Amazon and buy access to the Amazon network services at the same market price as Netflix and everyone else.)

So any way this whole thing shakes out, Netflix wins. Because whatever it costs, it costs that much for everyone, and Netflix gets the same content catalog as everyone.

Netflix was the initial leader simply because they started earlier; now that other competitors appeared, they have a vertically integrated platform holding some extremely popular exclusive content (House of Cards, Stranger Things, Casa de Papel). And you're telling me they'd rather become an undifferentiated platform, competing only on the technical merits of their streaming tech (part of which runs on their competitor's machines!) and price?

I'm no business expert, but that doesn't sound likely at all to me. There's a reason why ISPs are always trying to vertically integrate with content production. Moving bits around is a low-margin business.

>(part of which runs on their competitor's machines!) and price?

Only the new law ensures that none of it will be running on their competitors machines. A stricture mandated by law for Natflix.

That's the brilliance of the law! (Well, for Netflix anyway.)

And if you think House of Cards and Stranger Things are as valuable as franchises as Star Wars, Star Trek, and the Disney Archive, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. As far as content swaps go, you happily make that trade every time.

I would absolutely love to see the Play Store and App Store spun off into independent governance as an effect of this law... the Play Store is less terrible, but Apple users are pretty much locked into exclusively using the App Store.

In Apple's case I think it would be more like they can't set up the App Store's rules or iOS to privilege Apple apps as the default for things. So like, default mail clients or browsers.

Netflix isn't a marketplace.