Do you have anything to prove your claim? Any precedent?
Epic could already to their own Play Store, but they didn't/couldn't.
Freaking Amazon had their app store and they failed. Samsung also has their own App Store and how many non-Samsung phones run it?
What users wanted: One streaming service from where you can stream or rent any movie or show available in the world.
What users got: 1000 streaming services each with their app and UX that is shitty in a slightly different way from the other, and with a catalog that keeps changing unpredictably.
users wants are company wants. one X is how you end up with a monopoly and an endgame where they enshittify the platform to cost as much as Cable back in the day.
I'm a bit surprised a community as tech savvy as this has frustrations over the idea of using multiple platforms. decentralization by its nature means you'll have fragmentation of content. But it protects against the worse ending of Youtube price hiking mulitple times a year and doubling down on adblock users.
The clusterfuck of the media universe is actually _because_ of monopoly. But it's not monopoly on UX, it is monopoly on the content.
If you want to watch the Lion King, Disney has your balls in a vice grip.
I would be perfectly fine with a hundred different UXes, if they could all serve me Lion King and I had an option to pay for it. Then it would be an actual decentralization. A syndicated system where I can access a movie or song on any platform (of my choice), and the copyright holder gets paid appropriately would be an approach most people in the tech savvy community would be happy with.
For all the noise journalists and the justice department make about big tech, there is basically ZERO action taken about the monopolization of IP that media houses indulge in.
Epic could already to their own Play Store, but they didn't/couldn't. Freaking Amazon had their app store and they failed. Samsung also has their own App Store and how many non-Samsung phones run it?