> Adobe App Store

You’re describing a website with a purchase button, the exact situation we have on all non-mobile devices.

> Look at the Windows game stores situation.

Yes and look at their competition: GoG, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic Games, Origin, etc. Don’t like Windows game stores, no problem just use a competitor.

> GoG, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic Games, Origin, etc. Don’t like Windows game stores, no problem just use a competitor.

This is literally their point. Windows gaming is a convoluted mess of stores that you have to juggle, a far cry from the experience Apple has been trying to offer to consumers.

Having to click, once, between different stores if you really care about a game is not some convoluted process.

And analogies to streaming services don’t hold up for a few reasons:

1. There’s no ongoing cost to have an account at the each, purchases are one time.

2. Games do not leave services the way shows leave streaming sites.

> Games do not leave services the way shows leave streaming sites

This already isn’t accurate, and it’s getting less so all the time.

I guess I’d like to see some examples of games being pulled from stores and also from the libraries of paid customers.

It’s not convoluted. There’s just multiple stores. You can get 99.9% of the games you want on steam.

You now have different terms of service for these stores, including rules about data collection. Software will be exclusively available on these stores, so it’s not like you’ll actually have a choice about whether to use a given store.

Just like those “competitive” windows game stores.

The horror of having different companies allowed to set their own rules for how they interact with people. This scenario is how websites and the web as a whole work, it’s how macOS and windows work.

And if you have concerns about privacy or shady business practices (I do too) remember that Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter are allowed on the App Store and get preferential treatment.

The third party I want protecting me from sharing practices isn’t Apple (who is whole unaccountable) it’s the government.

> This won’t be an option for many people.

Yes it will be.

Do what you do with every other product. Don't install it if you don't like it.

But let other people decide what they want to do with their own phones.

Exactly, you should let other people decide what they do with their phones. The majority of Apple users chose phones for the tightly curated, easy to navigate Apple ecosystem. You don't have a right to upend that by forcing Apple to change the product they bought to more closely resemble a product that's already on the market.

If you want an open ecosystem get an Android phone already, don't try to dictate what other people are allowed to buy.

(Writing as a happy Android user who chose it for F-Droid!)

It seems you're saying that since there's a choice on one level (phone architecture, Android vs. iOS), it doesn't matter if choice is denied on all other levels. Your reasoning seems to be that if anyone is unhappy with being prevented from doing something with their phone, they can resolve it by buying a different phone.

This notion of freedom is compelling in its elegance, but it's not how freedom is generally understood in contexts where most people have pre-existing commitments and investments which constrain their exercise of a particular high-level choice.

For example while it's true that people who live in an authoritarian state generally do have the ability to leave, we don't consider that option to absolve the authoritarian state of its responsibility to grant rights to its citizens. The reason is that it's very hard for most people to switch countries: it requires learning a new language, re-buying all the possessions and property that can't be relocated, and losing all the connections and efficiencies people depend on to make their lives work well.

Because of the high switching cost, people who had the misfortune to settle in a state which turned authoritarian are likely to submit to conditions which they don't actually agree with or like. We don't consider such people to be free, despite the nominal first-order freedom of choice they do have.

> Exactly, you should let other people decide what they do with their phones.

So then people who want to install whatever app store on their iPhone should be allowed to do so. And those who disagree can not do that.

> The majority of Apple users chose phones for the tightly curated, easy to navigate Apple ecosystem

Once again. If you want that, few people would be opposed to a "lock down" button that turns your phone into an "apple ecosystem only" phone.

But other people should be able to install whatever they want and their own iPhone.

> If you want an open ecosystem get an Android phone already,

Or, instead of that, people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their phones, including their own iPhones.

You can have your lockdown button if you want, and most governments would be fine with that. But other people should be allowed to do what they want with their own iPhone, including installing other app stores.

Thats not going to satify you, because what you actually want to do is control other people's iPhones.

I don't want to control your phone. Lock it down, all you want. Apple can even include a helpful lockdown feature and it would be with everyone else.

Just let other people do what they want with their own iPhones.

> don't try to dictate what other people are allowed to buy.

You would be the one dictating what other people do with their phones. I am perfectly fine with you having a locked down iPhone as long as it is possible for other people, who are not you, to have a not locked down iPhone.

See the difference?