If I want a walled garden should I be allowed to have it? I understand individuals want to exercise control over things they own. I’m not interested in forcing brands to make their products open platform. I don’t want an open platform. I want a locked down and predictable platform. If you would rather argue that the distributor fee is too high I’d be inclined to agree.

Sure, I have no problem with there being a walled garden as long as users who want to have a way to opt out. Curated app stores do have value and I don't think they should disappear. I even think it is fine for niche platforms to exclusively have walled gardens.

> I don’t want an open platform.

Do you think the state of the world would be better if desktops were not open platforms? I'm genuinely curious because this is something I just can't relate to.

You want walled gardens with check points? What is the point in building the wall if you can just leave or enter when you desire? I’m interested in a digital prison for my phone. I have no desire to entertain the concept of hypothetical arguments which ultimately boil down to - I also want some of this money, let us in.

To expound on the other comments a bit more clearly: if it's the drive of a large portion of consumers that they only want to consume apps from the App Store because of the ecosystem that provides it should not require forcing everyone that has an iPhone to use the App Store, usage of the App Store and interest in apps working to get on it/pay dues should be a natural results of a large percentage of the customer base choosing to force apps to do such not a large portion of the customer base being forced into it because the hardware picks for them.

Did no one who bought an iPhone understand it has one store and a restrictive OS? I’m unsure of why you think the largest demographic isn’t already the ones who bought the phone with no side loading. I don’t give a shit that I can’t side load games on my console or my tv OS. The phone is the same and perhaps this is more of a generational difference.

I would wager a years salary if you went around to 100 random iPhone owners and asked them "did you buy the iPhone because it's a walled garden where you can't sideload" 90+ of the responses would be something along the lines of "what is sideloading".

For those that answer "yes, actually" the option for them to be able to use the walled garden would still be there - allowing others the option does not take that away from those that are actually choosing the walled garden vs being required to use it after getting the phone for other reasons.

Who is forcing you to leave the walled garden? All we are asking for is an option to install unapproved apps. You don't have to install them if you don't want to.

No one would force you to use third party app stores.

You don’t think that those third parties would move their apps to be exclusive to their stores?

The way it is now is very straightforward. If you want an app, you know where to get it. You know who’s vetted it. You know who’s handling your payment info. You (now) know what information about you is being gathered and disseminated.

Can you imagine how terrible a world where every App thinks it needs its own store would be?

This hasn’t really happened on Android or desktop open platforms. There are alternative app stores, but certainly not one for each app, and it would be a self-inflicted distribution wound for an app to go exclusive to a smaller app store.

Having a uniform way to handle payments is a great feature, but it would happen naturally if payment terms were competitive with industry norms instead of extractive prices that require a lock on distribution.