> but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place.

Do they believe that? Their behavior and stance could equally be explained by pursuing their economic best-interest

They most definitely are. But they figured that aligning their interests with their users’ brings in quite a lot of money. Security and privacy certainly is part of the appeal of iOS devices, and strict sandboxing and app vetting is part of that. So is not having to leave your card details on the developer’s database every time you buy an app.

You can still have that even if it's open. There's literally nothing preventing them doing all that while letting others choose not to.

You can’t, because no app can install other apps. So sandboxing would need to be significantly changed.

Every big software publisher having its own store implies that our details will be stored in more databases, which increases the risk of hack or leak. The alternative would be to not get apps that we can currently get without risking much. It is hard to see this as a progress.

Google did this right with developer mode on Chrome OS. Flip a physical interlock and your device becomes simultaneously "yours" and untrusted by Google.

Apple could do the same thing. They won't because the reason for the walled garden is revenue. The user privacy and security gambit conveniently aligns with generating revenue.

> The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices

But there are other solutions. The other solution is that people are allowed to do what they want, with phones that they own.

And you don't have to download other app stores, if you don't want to!

I think the better solution is to persuade them to open up their computing devices.