> Well, ultimately, it is. If a "store within a store" (or a second independent store) gets too much traction, it will hold the platform back.

A better solution would be for the DOJ to force Apple to allow other app stores and open installs.

> If such a store/third entity becomes powerful Apple can't direct the future and make the changes it wants (the jump to Apple Sillicon is just a recent example, deprecating Carbon, notarization, etc) but has to placate to that too, or risk the ire of tons of dependent users.

Where is that a problem in reality? They've changed their desktop architecture, and that's a completely open platform.

> Apple has seen that play out when it gave too much power to Adobe, MS and others, and has been correcting for that ever since Jobs came back...

Apple built something that is now widely used for conducting business, finance, communication, etc. They no longer deserve to have a singular stranglehold on it. The world depends on iPhone, and it needs to be opened up.

>A better solution would be for the DOJ to force Apple to allow other app stores and open installs.

Force them to make a different product that the one users buy on their own volition, despite a more open alternative with double the adoption, and which took Apple from a bankrupt company in 1997 to the largest company on Earth in 2020?

Did it ever occured to anyone that some of the success iOS has is precisely because it does restrict things a certain way (which enable other things, from security to quicker platform tech changes)?

And that as users we like it because of those things, not despite them?

As a former iOS developer and a user, I'm torn. AppStore's rules are frustrating and unevenly applied, and it sucks that AppStore is the only way to distribute apps. On the other hand, as a user I don't want 20 goddamn app stores on my device. Want Portal 2? Go download Steam! Want Fortnight? Go download Epic store! Minecraft? Windows store! It's horrible.

Sure but I prefer that to the alternative of ‘everything is only available on the Windows store’, where Steam doesn’t exist

Most games except the ones you listed are available across multiple stores, and websites like humble bundle. Typically the only limitation is that most stores do not allow publishers to advertise that an item is available on another store. For example, Halo can be picked up on Steam or Windows Store these days. Microsoft realised that people preferred certain stores over others. So much so that Epic is still giving away multiple games every week trying to build up it's user base.

EA tried to play hardball with their Origin store and only recently started selling on Steam again.

What happens to my games when the store I bought them from goes bust?

Depends on the store. GoG and Humble Bundle offer DMR free downloads typically so you can store and keep your own software. Others? Same thing as any other walled garden.

Once a program is purchased from a store, it doesn't need to be launched from that store. GOG Galaxy 2 accumulates the storefronts into one launcher, where you can search, install, and launch any game that you've purchased on any of the platforms. This wouldn't even be possible on an iOS device. I'm in favor of openness and interconnectivity over uniformity.

> as a user I don't want 20 goddamn app stores on my device

Nobody would force anyone to install alternate stores.

> Well, ultimately, it is. If a "store within a store" (or a second independent store) gets too much traction, it will hold the platform back.

Here's the thing. We're talking about objective, concrete examples. Allow Microsoft's and other trusted partners app, but reject others. Apple likes to pretend it sets the same rules for all developers and there's no exceptions, which is categoricly false, as has been documented time and time again[1].

Google Stadia and Xbox Game Pass Ultimate game streaming services are not "alternate app stores" which will hold the iOS platform back. Arguably as these are all streaming services, where there's no code executing on the device, it makes it easier for Apple to make architectural changes to its platform because the games playable within the apps do not require those changes!

Apple can still reject "alternate app stores", but allow specific applications like XGPU because it just seems like the right thing to do? Preventing these services on iOS holds back iOS and ultimately makes the platform less capable and hurts consumers.

[1]: Apple taking only 15% cut from Amazon, letting Amazon use their own payment provider for in-app rentals, extending private entitlements for certain developers

i don't think the game store is using any kind of private apis, so in that regard it's really the same as any other application.

"risk the ire of tons of dependent users": This argument doesn't hold: the reason an OS is successful isn't for the OS, but for the apps. So, unless you think apple should actually write all the successful apps themselves, to remain in control and easily make deep technical migrations feasible, i really don't see how that could work.

xCloud isn’t a store. It’s a subscription model just like Netflix.

Meanwhile Amazon can sell digital movies à la carte on iOS. A literal store downloaded via a store.