Also - it seems worth following up on this:

>> Are you saying you weren’t familiar with Epic’s case?

> Epic's case is irrelevant to the larger debate at hand. They are not the only ones who want Apple to open up their platform, and not everyone who wants them to cares for third party stores to be "first-class App Store alternatives." You are arguing against a strawman if you insist that Epic's demands be the only metric for debate. Go take it up with Sweeney.

Ok, but this indicates you knew about the case and intentionally lied - it wasn’t just a ‘mistake’ as you claimed earlier.

I don't know of the specifics of Epic's case to that there's this pedantic distinction of "first-class vs. non-first class" third party App Store alternatives. So I suppose I lied about knowing about the case, because I am clearly ignorant of its specifics. Which reinforces my point that Epic is irrelevant to this discussion, because I don't care about the details of what they're arguing for, merely the principle that "Apple should open up and allow third party app stores."

So yes, perhaps I lied, but you are wrong about what lie, because I honestly do not care about Epic to examine their case in detail, merely that they escalated the debate about Apple's openness into the realm of legal scrutiny. If I was wrong in claiming that "no one is arguing for this" and I was wrong because Epic is in fact doing so, and then you accuse me of lying of being aware of the existence of Epic's lawsuit but not of its specifics, then call me a liar for all of the good it does to your position.

> Do you claim to be objective?

No. Do you?

> The fact that a small number of developers are vocal about it doesn’t change that.

The fact that it's a small number of developers- which is a debatable claim- doesn't make it wrong.

> You list a series of numbered points which are a strawman of the case against Apple being forced to allow sideloading or alternative stores.

It's not a strawman when they are arguments used by those who are against third party stores or sideloading. Some of which are your own.

> However suffice it to say that you dismiss a lot of stuff as speculative and unlikely, with only your own speculation as the counterargument.

Everything at this point is wild speculation, including your own points. It's good for both sides to acknowledge at this point that this is a whole lot of hypothesizing. I have provided evidence culled from real world examples of other software markets, which is at least less hypothesis.

> I’m not going to bother to comment on every part of it,

Then you forfeit those points on the basis of disengagement.

> Possibly someone is, but I haven’t seen it and it’s ceerainly not part of any argument I am making. I don’t care about Apple’s market share.

"It could, or it could do a great deal of harm to the market. Perhaps Apple simply doesn’t agree with your assessment."

> Can you see that they would make more if thet could take the 30% for themselves?

That wouldn't motivate them to create their own app market. They haven't done so on Android to get around Play Store regulations. They've attempted their own independent attempts at both an Android app launcher (Facebook Home) and their own Android phone (HTC First), both to overwhelming consumer apathy and lack of success.

An attempt by Facebook to try to challenge Apple or Google at their own game by doing something as blatant as opening their own app store will likely prove to be as fruitless; this is not baseless speculation - this is based on actual product history. This also extends to challenging Apple and Google by creating their own smartphones, see the failure of the Amazon Fire Phone or the lack of success of Tizen.

And again, network effects would hamstring Facebook, or Amazon, or even Google from opening their own iOS app markets; users don't want to deviate from something as comprehensive as the App Store to get these basic "utility" apps.

A more likely scenario would be game publishers such as Epic (and EA, Ubisoft, Steam, etc.) from creating their own game app stores, which would be a different story. Or if you want to come up with something even more interesting, ByteDance, which is a Chinese company and so might have more legal incentives to break free of Apple, creating its own app store centered around TikTok which is the hot new social network flavor of this time, unlike stodgy Facebook. Or WeChat - though the current lack of political obstacles have removed their incentive to be free of both the App Store or the Play Store for now. Not to mention, WeChat Mini apps show that you don't even need to build a whole damn third party app store when you can turn the app itself into a platform for other apps.

> Are you aware that Google operates a search engine, and would be able to take a margin for themselves if they were able to complete App installs on their own store?

Given the poor reputation of the Play Store, just because Google has the resources to make a competing app store doesn't mean they have the product, design talent, or organizational will to make it any good, nor compelling enough to seduce App Store users away from their existing store of choice.

So I reiterate- Facebook, Google, and Amazon are all technically capable of building app stores, but there are immense forces both within their organizations and without (network effects) that would prevent them from effectively creating alternative app stores that are worth their while. You can already see this on Android, PC, and macOS, where such alternate stores don't even exist.

Furthermore, you haven't even given a clear example of why users would flock to these stores in the first place. To get the Google Maps app or the Gmail app? If anything, this could irritate users and cause them to resist adoption, similar to situations where users are forced to use also-ran products, such as when Microsoft forces Edge users to use Bing. Or Google+ integration in everything. Or Facebook login. Why would these companies forcing users to leave the App Store be seen as anything less invasive or desperate? Where is the consumer-side demand for these alternative app stores run by other corporate giants whose bread and butter aren't apps?

Your entire scenario is based on fear-mongering that depicts Apple, in its infinite cash reserves and product/brand mastery, as helpless while all the other corporations in their product fecklessness somehow have superiority. It doesn't add up, and is a disproportionate reaction to the prospect of Apple allowing third-party app markets and sideloading.

If you can give an actual example of an analogous situation where any of your bogeymen have successfully exploited openness to cause this harmful situation you are decrying, then you have a point. But so far all you have are pointed at the snowball of possible motivations without justifying the avalanche you are claiming is inevitable.

> Yes.

You've clearly failed at it.

> No, but are you aware thar Amazon search is starting to rival Google because people go straight there when searching for products? Getting to sell apps and take 30% would be an obvious complement to their department store mode.

Tell it to the Fire Phone. I can see Alexa being a threat to Siri/the HomePod, but strength in IoT doesn't automatically translate to strength in smartphone software. What is the incentive for consumers to switch to an Amazon market? And if this exists, explain why the Amazon Android App Store is such a dud, useful only on Kindle?

Clearly these large corporations don't find it as compelling as you seem think they should.

> You just claim that nobody serious would bother to create alternative stores.

And now I've laid out why similar initiatives in the past have failed, and why creating an alternative store that people actually use would be very difficult for these large companies.

> I’m surprised you don’t see this.

Execution is what matters. You've provided a vague destination with no road map whatsoever, and I've laid out why previous expeditions have ended in failure.