But, for little Timmy to buy diamonds in a mobile game from an alternate store he would have to install the alternate store then "borrow" his parent's credit card to register with the new store.

If "little" Timmy is pulling those sort of shenanigans then I suggest his parents have bigger problems and they probably won't blame Apple at all.

Now think about this scenario: the parent approves installation when asked because they didn’t realize it was an open ended financial commitment, and because like most people they associate app stores with curation which prevents abuse.

When they get a huge bill 6 months later, or after the game company is acquired, etc. the first thing they’re going to ask is why nobody warned them. That’s the point of these dialogs - to make the importance of the decision harder to miss.

Today, Timmy's parents learn what a "chargeback" is, and how stable financial institutions help circumvent fraud better than App Store curation does.

Just wait until you try to cancel a subscription and learn why that one feature is so popular with Apple users.

Just wait until subscriptions can be bought for ~<30% cheaper elsewhere and see how much it matters to people. Apple will certainly get their chance to make a case for the feature.

Yes, nobody is arguing that some people will follow the cheapest option but this thread is about the guy claiming that it’s anticompetitive for users choosing his payment system to receive a confirmation that it’s not the Apple system they’re used to and has different policies.

It could very well be anticompetitive. Microsoft was was almost broken up over similar scareware tactics, you'd have to be blind to see Apple in a different position today.

The "Alternate store" might just be Epic's own store, the one with Fortnite. A big trustworthy name in the parents' eyes.

Then the parents insert their CC info so Timmy can get the latest Disney skin for his game.

And of course the store doesn't have any safeguards or parental controls, they're on the iOS side. In the official store.

Can you seriously, hand on heart, tell me that people will in this case blame Epic for their crappy store and not Apple?

Apple should be to blame. Even registered and paying iOS developers aren't allowed basic sideloading privileges you'd get for free on Android. This isn't about stopping Little Timmy, this is about annihilating all avenues of app distribution that doesn't come from Apple. If Apple took a softer stance on this earlier, then developers wouldn't be up-in-arms right now.

And mind you - nothing actually stops Apple from designing a safe and respectful sideloading system like MacOS. They actively choose to make iOS a diminished and neutered platform for profitability purposes. People will blame Apple, and they will be right - Apple brought this upon themselves. There is no one else to blame.

How is it Apple’s problem when someone designs an alternate App Store with no safeguards or parental controls?

Because it's Apple's problem regardless. The iPhone is at-odds with it's identity of security and privacy even without the threat of sideloading. The App Store, a supposedly curated and well-reviewed platform, is dominated by pay-to-play games and ad-supported datamining apps. First-party Apple software like iMessage is perpetually vulnerable to escalation attacks due to the way it's designed. iCloud is basically a fancy sticker on state-owned and surveilled datacenters that Apple markets for an easy buck.

Now, they want to argue that sideloading is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Not Safari, which has enabled lord knows how many scams and privilege escalation attacks. Not the App Store, which disseminates exploitative and fraudulent content under the guise of simplicity and security. Not iMessage, the perennial attack-vector for escalated malware. Somehow it's the sideloaders who are the problem, for daring to suggest that the iPhone should rely on OS-level security rather than arbitrary (and often wrong) first-party curation.

Who do you suggest we blame?