That wasn't a comparison. If 3rd party app stores are a thing, you might be compelled to use them by yet other third parties, contrary to your claim that no one would force you to use third party app stores.

Ah i see, i thought you were comparing employers forcing you to install something with Apple forcing everyone to go through their App Store.

Well, in that case, if employers force you to install something then just tell them give you a work phone. Or talk to them, you are adults.

And if that doesn't work, well, tough luck. This sounds like trying to solve a malfunctioning workplace problem by making everyone else suffer - it isn't my or Apple's or anyone else's problem that your boss forces you to install shady apps.

Part of the reason I pay Apple for their devices is that they have offered to solve this problem for me. It's part of the value proposition of their device.

You may see this as a solution, however this (non-)solution creates larger problems by itself as i have repeatedly mentioned in these comments.

I'm not convinced the problems are larger (or, at least, not that they're larger for most people; some people are seriously inconvenience by Apple's policies. I once hit a hard roadblock trying to develop something for the iPhone and had to switch to Android exclusive development; so it goes). And I think having different organizations exploring different tradeoffs in this space is a valuable thing. There are platforms that are more open that Apples and platforms less open. That variety is healthy.

I'm not sure what sort of tradeoff is there to explore: there aren't any real (not perceived, like prefering Apple's control that you do not really lose since you can have the option - even by default - stick with Apple, i mean actually real) positives for anyone involved outside of Apple. But the negatives is currently for the users not being in control over the devices they bought (i really cannot fathom how people are fine with that, every response i've read here really sounds like Stockholm syndrome) and in the future having a precedent for other companies to follow - thus affecting not only the people who use Apple now, but also people of the future (also many people taking a "let's see first the bad stuff happening and then we might judge and take some actions" is a problem by itself - by the time this is commonplace it will be way too late to take any real action).

And besides, what different organizations exploring what different tradeoffs? Right now the only practical options are Apple and Android, there aren't really that many options as to have a healthy environment and Google isn't immune to making decisions that can have an overall negative impact to the control that people have over the stuff they buy (see their Stadia console as an example and how it completely and absolutely removes any notion of control from people buying games - not even consoles, let alone PCs, feature such loss of control).

Perhaps an opportunity to cultivate some empathy and listen carefully to people whose relationship with computational devices is very different from yours. Telling people that their concerns are imaginary isn't a good way to persuade them.

I know people who break from what you call the practical options in both directions -- some who reject smartphones altogether and live their lives without them, doing all their digital work on computers that they have full control over -- and some who use only the stock apps on their phone and wish that app stores were not a thing. They want an entirely managed experience.

Neal Stephenson's essay In the Beginning was the Command Line gets at some of this nicely. Some people are, as he says, Eloi and some Morlocks. That's OK.