By that logic, you would want MacOS to be the same, apps only available via the store? It would give you all the same benefits, why is MacOS still 'open'? Why is there a terminal?

I'm sure many preferred internet provider and railway cartels too because they didn't want other people to fiddle with the system. When sideloading will be enabled you're more than welcome to stay in the walled garden, but you can't dictate how other people want to use their devices.

> The entire process falls apart if Apple is forced to allow other App Stores.

Why? You have the choice of not using other App Stores. Just like you have the choice to not use Android, so therefore it doesn't effect you.

But it does affect me. Apple's "walled garden" approach only works if they are able to actually have walls and force companies to abide by their rules. Removing those restrictions removes any leverage Apple (and by extension consumers like me) have over other large companies. For example, Netflix could say "you have to use this other App Store" and many people would convert. It's essentially a tragedy of the commons.

Sure, it may not be fair to these large corporations, but it's currently a great situation for consumers. Everybody is free to either go more laissez-faire (Android) or more walled garden (iOS). I don't think the courts should ruin that.

>Sure, it may not be fair to these large corporations, but it's currently a great situation for consumers.

Exactly, it is still anti-competitive behavior. Just because consumers like yourself may enjoy it, doesn't make it not anti-competitive.

> For example, Netflix could say "you have to use this other App Store" and many people would convert.

And in the same way that I can choose to not get iOS device, you can always choose to not use Netflix.