@jjoelson @matthewstoller I was drawing an analogy between network effects and integration effects, not saying that Apple has network effects in the same way as Meta. In both cases, real value is provided to users. In both cases, we have allowed that value to be provided in ways that grant first-movers incredible advantages and market power. That is the problem to be remedied. 1/

@jjoelson @matthewstoller Network effects should belong to the public network, should not be Meta's private database. Integration effects should be provided in ways that allow third-parties to fully integrate and compete. Apple used to do that. Those old, scrapped User Interface Guidelines were a genius approach to letting third parties provide software that merged seamlessly with first-party software without granting first-party applications special advantages. 2/

@jjoelson @matthewstoller Fundamentally, what the antitrust work against Apple is about is not undoing the integration, but about requiring Apple to maximize the ability of third parties to fully integrate in ways that mean first party services have to compete. Apple can—if it is smart, will—fully maintain its marvelous integration, and let others plug into it on terms it doesn't unilaterally dictate, but must publicly in justify in ways competition authorities can understand and accept. 3/

@jjoelson @matthewstoller If Apple wants to maintain the simplicity of the App Store, it can do so, just let third parties be plugins to the same interface, like Amazon and merchants. (If they wish to maintain the branding of their curation, they can use skinning within the App Store app.) Letting PWAs be first class apps is pro-integration. The value of integration grows with what you can integrate! Why does Apple need a payments monopoly for integration? etc. /fin