I said no such thing. I said, by implication, that losing a year's revenue, but still having a functioning company, is better than being forced into bankruptcy.

Also, that in no way means that causing a third party app developer to lose a year's revenue is not a bad thing to do. Of course it is.

However, in both cases, the root cause is that the owner of the platform wants to run their platform in a way that third party devs don't like. And ultimately, unless the users of the platform care enough to force the platform owner to change, third party devs are simply going to be out of luck. It sucks, but that's the fact. Third party Windows apps today are for things that MS doesn't care enough about to implement themselves, because Windows users don't care that third party devs get a raw deal. Third party iOS apps are going to end up the same way, unless iOS users start to care about the sucky position third party devs are in. Which, as far as I can tell, they don't.

Apple's walled garden can more easily force you into bankruptcy though since you have no alternative way to distribute iOS apps to customers, therefore your revenue stream can be cut off without warning. Just because that one dev in that example didn't go bankrupt, doesn't prove your argument.

Meanwhile, Microsoft can't stop you from distributing apps on Windows, even though you're clawing to some made up strawman that they can make you bankrupt. You can still sell your apps just fine on your own website and people can easily pay you, download it and install it without Microsoft's permission since you can do whatever you want with that os, just like on MacOS.

I have no idea how you can argue the latter app distribution model is worse than the walled garden one, just through two anecdotal examples.

To be clear I have been an Apple customer since way before the iPhone, but I really feel bad about the new breed of Apple fanatics. To be honest, I have the feeling that some cognitive limitation is part of the reason for being such a loyal customer.