I appreciate that iOS does not allow software to require this.

Yes you can avoid the giant mess of 3rd party launchers on Mac, but only by writing off huge swaths of the software market. Want to run Photoshop? You get to have the Creative Cloud client.

The current state of iOS software is that I never have to go into Task Manager and see what junk has inserted itself as a startup item, whether anything will break if I don't want its update/license client running in the background, or worry about whether it really quits when I quit it or tries to stay resident in the system tray.

The current state of iOS software is that you can't run Signal in China. Or torrent client anywhere.

Okay, and why is it your fundamental right to be able to do either of those? On what basis should a company be compelled to implement that functionality?

You can always buy a device that allows you to do those things, after all. It's not like Apple is the only device vendor out there, or even a majority device vendor.

Because if I own the device, manufacturer should not decide what kind of apps I can run.

See: a user in China owns the iPhone and wants to run the app.

Apps developer wants a user to run the app.

And only Apple doesn't let it happen, on the device that it doesn't own anymore.

Regarding your argument, "do not buy it", of course I don't buy it! But that doesn't make this position of Apple right, and I'm glad that lawmakers might put an end to this malicious practice.

Returning your argument, if Apple wants to control what users do with the iPhones, perhaps they shouldn't give up their ownership of devices and shouldn't sell them.

Then don't download apps from a hypothetical secondary iOS App Store. You literally have the same option as people in this thread who say "just don't buy Apple."

I'm aware that I can avoid installing a second store and not run any software that comes from it. The issue I'm pointing out is that software that's currently available through the App Store could move exclusively to alternatives if given the option.

Like that time when Epic Games said "We don't want to use the Google Play Store, so if you want to play Fortnite you have to install it from the Fortnite Installer". And then we immediately had this: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336?pli=1

> This vulnerability allows an app on the device to hijack the Fortnite Installer to instead install a fake APK with any permissions that would normally require user disclosure.

If they could switch to Fortnite Installer on iOS I assume they would. Would it have security holes? Would it do other annoying things that the App Store doesn't let them do?

Repeat those questions for a hypothetical Microsoft iOS Store, Google iOS Store, Amazon iOS Store, Steam iOS Store, Ubisoft iOS Store, EA iOS Store, Pokemon GO Installer, Nintendo iOS Store, iOS Minecraft Launcher, and I'd expect to see more security vulnerabilities and/or hostile behaviors that Apple doesn't allow.

It's a tradeoff. I know the current system isn't perfect, but I worry that forcing Apple to allow other stores to do their own thing will be worse in a variety of ways.

But then, simply don't run that software. Vote with your wallet. Use a competitor that remains on the App Store. Why deprive others of the choice, in favor of a single entity in charge- a single point of failure? I thought it was a truism in tech that monocultures are a bad thing?

I'm voting with my wallet to have an iPhone where there's no Fortnite Installer instead of Android where there is.

Believe it or not I had an Android phone before and decided I like Apple's system better.

If it were my only computing device and I needed to run a bittorrent client I acknowledge it would be a problem, but like I said elsewhere in the comments, it's a trade-off.

I agree there's a tradeoff. And that in the scenario where Apple allows alternate app stores, there would also be tradeoffs. But I disagree with your view that it would have to resemble the situation on Android. I feel that the Apple brand and the inherent security features of the iOS environment- which aren't simply the exclusivity of the App Store and the App Store Review process- could lead to secondary stores that are carefully curated and have a higher bar of security than the ones you see on Android. In fact, one could very well imagine companies entering into a new market and providing secure app markets that try to beat Apple at their own game (such as searchability). For one thing, there's more money to be made with iOS apps, and perhaps that could lead to greater investment and higher quality stores.

I view the dismissals of "secondary app markets will just be like insecure shoddy secondary Android app stores" to be both pessimistic and lacking in imagination at the potential for new businesses and innovation to be created if Apple just gives up a little bit of its dominating power.

Oh but see then third parties who's software _I_ want so badly and would sacrifice my ethical position to acquire might choose not to distribute on Apple's app store because it's anti-competitive. Well shit.