Here's my objections to what you just said:
1) The standard cut on virtually all services is virtually identical. The reason the big boys play hardball with the big distribution services is because they want the distribution services to take less of a cut. Why should iTunes take less of a cut for the Rolling Stones than for some random Indie game? Why should Steam take less of a cut on Medal of Honor than on Amnesia? While Steam, iTunes, BMG, and EA are all looking out for themselves rather than me, a situation where Steam and iTunes are strong is much better than a situation where BMG and EA are strong. For me and for indies.
2) I like the segmentation of roles in the industry. EA keeps trying to muscle in with their own digital download service. Valve has shown, thusfar, an ability to juggle their interests as a publisher of their own content and their interests as a distribution service, so I don't fault them. EA has not shown that, because their download service is a giant pile of shit and their DRM terms are ass-backwards. Ideally I'd rather a world where Steam as distributor was separate from Valve as publisher, but if they're going to be integrated, I'd much rather it be integrated in a way that benefits me.
3) Ensuring that Coke doesn't have a monopoly by supporting Pepsi doesn't generate competitions. Oligopolies behave economically very similarly to a monopoly. Supporting GFWL (owned by Microsoft) or Direct2Drive (owned by News Corp) or EA's own service doesn't do anything to give competition for consumers, it just reinforces the existing oligopoly the same way supporting Steam would.