I don't accept that - it's leaning into having too much faith in the free market that alternative options must emerge to suit the actual consumer desire. The issue is that we're dealing with an oligopoly where consumers have very little freedom of choice and refusing to use the iStore leaves you with precisely one option.

There is a common argument that having such a locked down store is what allowed the device to thrive but I don't believe that is usually made in good faith due to the easy counter example of Android being able to unseat the initial monopoly without using the same tactic and the fact that very little marketing or praise for the device has been specifically focused on the iStore being so locked down.

Consumer choice only really counts when there is an open field with healthy competition.