If you're going to dismiss the majority of my arguments and points, as well as reality in favor of your own framing, then you're refusing to debate in good faith.

Epic's lawsuit is immaterial, imo. We don't know how the courts will decide. Rather, what's being debated is what a hypothetical open iOS will look like. Even if they lose the lawsuit, Pandora's box has been opened. Years of developer dissatisfaction and corporate strategizing has called Apple's dominance into question, and we are now examining potential futures if Apple opens up. I don't believe a forced opening on Epic's terms is inevitable, nor is it the only model for opening up.

One can even imagine a scenario where Apple opens up on its own terms. Perhaps they provide SDKs that allow the creation of third party app stores with stringent security mechanisms built in, and license that out to partners. They certainly have the resources to undertake such a process, and forcing such stores to pay a license fee would both allow them to recoup on lost revenue and allow them to maintain a level of control over their platform. Epic would scream but again they're neither the first to cry foul over the App Store monopoly, nor the last. If the bulk of the developer grievances can be sidestepped by Apple themselves, Epic would then truly just look like a litigious rent-seeker, rather than a company that's accidentally doing something that's helping the little guy.

> perhaps you can flesh out a realistic hypothetical about what developers can expect

How about the gaming market, especially over the past decade. The rise of Steam, the presence of somewhat niche alternatives like GOG.com, GamersGate, Humble Bundle, (I believe Blizzard was the major publisher with their own digital distribution store early on), then the sudden proliferation of other publishers from EA to UbiSoft and now Epic.

Does it require significant overhead for developers to support multiple stores? I'm sure it isn't free. But is it significantly detrimental to them? I'm not sure. Valve has been criticized over Steam's former near-monopoly of the gaming digital distribution market[0]. At least the present situation gives them alternatives to work with. The AAA publisher stores are often derided, but more from a consumer standpoint than a developer perspective. Having a ton of game installers and store accounts to manage is a pain. It's definitely not frictionless. But again, you're arguing on behalf of developers, and I'm not sure if they're unhappy with having more choices than just Steam.

> There will be exactly the same platform, but a whole load of additional predatory business to deal with.

Again, you have to provide examples in other segments where Facebook, Microsoft, et al have successfully created trouble for developers by offering them (and developers) more choices.

[0] https://www.polygon.com/2017/5/16/15622366/valve-gabe-newell...

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.

And no - I don’t have to provide examples of where Facebook, Microsoft etc, have already “caused trouble”. It just has to be reasonable to expect them to want to compete, and to employ commonly used tactics that are not necessarily good for developers or consumers. That is all I am suggesting. Facebook and Microsoft have been hyper competitive companies who generally do whatever they can get away with. 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. This is common knowledge.

As for opening up the Apple opening the App Store on their own terms, or indeed a bootcamp solution enabling people to do whatever they want with the hardware: I’m actually in favor of these, and I think talking about them is constructive.

What I am not in favor of is Epic winning a court supervised solution, and I separately think that simply assuming that more choices are better is a dangerous dogma that could easily make things a lot worse.

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 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.

I agree with that.

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.