This is faulty reasoning. There are technical reasons, and competitors choose a different set of trade-offs.
> there is also consumer harm in the loss of choice
There is no such harm, since as you have pointed out, competitors are available for consumer who want those things.
(And before someone mentions Movies Anywhere, that's US only)
There is harm to developers or companies where Apple is holding access to a large market.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/app-store-stopped-ove...
Apple PR is well Apple PR. They're gonna spin things in their favor.
www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou
You might think all of that are ok in US, these practices dont sit well in Euro Centric Minds.
Not really - we have a few press pieces. Nothing like the millions of scams that are stopped.
> and plenty of evidence of Apple blocking the perfectly valid apps.
Not really. We have a few prominent examples which are generally resolved by the developer adhering to the guidelines.
> And more that App Store isn't only about protecting people but also act as competitive advantage.
The App Store is a competitive advantage because consumers want a safe, trustworthy, and curated place to buy software.
If they are distinct products, then it sure looks like Apple using market dominance to push competitors out of the app store space. If they are the same product, then it seems reasonable for Apple to charge whatever fee they like for distribution to their products.
I tend to think they are distinct products. Competitors are able to treat them as distinct products, so there isn't a technical reason they must be unified. There is some consumer benefit in reduced cybercrime from a curated app store, but there is also consumer harm in the loss of choice (i.e. using an app store that allows torrent clients or porn).