Newcomers enter the phone market all the time.
What we don’t have is an adequately developed alternative OS that can appeal to regular users yet.
Microsoft failed because they have their own legacy to protect.
Google is compromised by their need to maintain their position in search.
There are plenty of Linux phone projects.
The only reason none of these are a good replacement yet is a lack of time and investment.
iOS didn’t just appear out of thin air - it took more than a decade to develop.
It’s easier than ever now to develop an alternative.
People who are focussing on forcing Apple to install alternative stores are by definition not interested in an alternative platform.
If they were, they would be investing in building one.
They just want access to Apple’s customer base.
That’s all there is to this.
Microsoft failed, partly because it was as of yet not a big enough platform to target by other developers - they have enought things to do with android and apple. A new platform can’t emerge unless there is some incentive for developers to target it. Linux phones are in a special circumstance, because apps are developer for them out of a hobby. But phones are a main social device, you can’t have one that doesn’t have your bank’s app on it for example. Linux phones must emulate android (and it is sort of working, fortunately) to remain afloat.
But ultimately you are right - there does have to be some incentive for people to support the platform.
People here are claiming that freedom from Apple is a huge incentive for developers.
Is that not correct?