Why should the legal system force Apple to do this? I get that it would prevent this type of scenario, but why should the the law care about this scenario at all?
Apple is arguably acting as a monopolist abusing its market position in violation of anti-trust laws. Apple takes a 30% cut on App Store purchases, potentially much higher than they would be able to if they didn't stifle competition. The Supreme Court recently ruled against Apple in Apple v. Pepper [1] on the question of whether purchasers of apps have standing to sue Apple. The case now goes back to the district court to decide the merits of the case.
> Just as there are phones other than Apple's, there were computers other than Wintel boxes
Well the specific numbers matter, don't they? Microsoft had a massive overwhelming monopoly whereas iOS has healthy competition in Android.
> I see nothing wrong with society demanding more accountability from those with more economic importance.
I don't disagree, but why should we specifically target Apple's app store rather than say, for example, passing a law that prohibits selling locked down hardware that prevents the user from installing whatever software they choose?
In theory, anything that increases competition is healthier for capitalism, but that doesn't mean that "anything that increases competition" should be mandated by law. Why should opening Apple's platform to other App Stores be mandated by law?
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf