[the_third_wave]

Why do you use those inflammatory examples and not, say, the following:

So, say we get an amazing third party store named F-Ios which is loaded with world class free software like Fennec (non-mozilla Firefox build), TermIos (Termux on Android) and IosPipe (Newpipe on Android). Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.

Imagine the possibilities offered by adding an iOS version of the Android F-Droid repo. That would draw customers which thus far shun Apple like the plague.

> But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.

Unfortunately you're most likely right here in that Apple does not want to give its customers the freedom to choose to evade its toll booths by choosing free software - they want to remain in control.

[barelysapient]

> Unfortunately you're most likely right here in that Apple does not want to give its customers the freedom to choose to evade its toll booths by choosing free software - they want to remain in control.

Yup. Apple is closed and for profit.

This will eventually even out. Look at the gains of Linux desktop. Once the curve of innovation flattened, open source caught up and now delivers I think a superior product to both Apple and Microsoft.

It took 10 years. But it's happening and I think the future looks bright.

I bet we're about 5-10 years away from a viable competitor in the phone space showing up.

[the_third_wave]

Maybe, maybe not. This still does not explain why you chose to use such an inflammatory example in what seems to be a defence for Apple's stance regarding third-party 'app stores' while it has been clear from the get-go that Apple wants to keep control over the distribution channels to keep up its profit margins.