Competing app stores would raise another problem though.

One that occurred with certifying agencies in the financial crisis of 2008.

In a world with competing app-stores, if a store does its scrutiny properly, and is seen as too strict, then the apps will flock to get listed in other less-strict app-stores. Thus all stores are incentivised to relax the scrutiny to retain apps for their own survival. Sometimes to the point of simply rubber-stamping their approvals on crappy stuff.

Thus the end-users lose the benefits of proper curation.

This doesn't happen on Android where 95% of applications are listed at the app store (excluding China), despite the existence of alternate stores. Why would it happen anywhere else? The main app stores have too much of an head start to lose their primary role, unless they screw up massively.

If app availability is the only dimension users care about, then sure, there will be a race into malware infested low quality stores. And what's the problem? It's the best for everybody here.

But your comment really points out that not everybody wants that. So your scenario won't happen on practice.

> Thus the end-users lose the benefits of proper curation.

But Apple are obviously not doing proper curation. They might be good at keeping viruses out, but what they have done to Wordpress and HEY was not proper in the least.

Users won't use the store known to be full of viruses

Right because users don’t goto sketchy sites or click on wierdo popups and get virus’s to this day.

Agreed, I think legislation should just force Apple to allow for competing app stores. At the end of the day, the users make the choice. Epic for example made their own store on PC to rival Steam's 30% cut. And they could do the same for iOS and Android, but on iOS that isn't even an option.