[pen2l]

People here miss the value of a tightly moderated walled garden: I don't have to worry about downloading things that are misleading or are chock full of dark patterns, because it has been vetted by an App Store that I trust. And when I download an app with a subscription through App Store, I can see any time how much it costs, I can cancel it any time no fuss: https://www.iphonelife.com/sites/iphonelife.com/files/styles...

Meanwhile, any subscription I sign up for through another channel, I have to wade through a sea of dark patterns to reach a cancel screen.

This is why I choose to have an iPhone, because the garden is walled and I can relax. If you want freedom to have multiple different app stores, Android is a better option for you.

[pjc50]

If an alternative app store existed, you could just .. not install it? Does the mere existence of an alternative harm you if you never use it?

[pen2l]

I'd rather another one not exist, because then it would become a game of incentives... app owners might only make their apps available on THAT App Store, resulting in App Store's value being diminished. I would like that the one App Store be the one and the only one in a KISS principle. Apple so far hasn't failed me, and so I continue to trust it and its judicious management and curation of apps.

Folks who care about having any app they want through alternative stores I wish would just opt for Android systems.

[pjc50]

Ah, the Highlander principle: there can be only one. The complete opposite of a "market", of course, which is why the rest of us are gearing up the non-market mechanisms against it.

This applies in reverse, of course. The existence of the Apple store makes certain apps only available for the Apple store (iOS only), so therefore us Android users need to have it banned so we can continue to have choice.

[pen2l]

I think a switch happened inside me roughly 5 years ago, that I went from eschewing walled gardens to now valuing them more and more. Too much of my life has been wasted fighting through dark patterns, finding cancel screens, or being had by manipulative subscription arrangements wherein there are cancelation fees or complex terms of service that somehow make cancelation difficult.

When I paid 1k-something dollars for an iPhone 16 a few months ago, I did not pay for a general purpose computing device, no, I paid for a device that can take pictures, and has certain apps that I like which I know how much I'm paying for, and I know that with ease I will be able to active/deactivate its subscription with zero struggle. That's what I paid for, a device made by a company whose discretion I trust and support, and I pray it continues being this way.

[tpdly]

And people like you will continue to have access to this curated experience. But developers who decide that access to you is not worth the platform fees will be able to pursue an alternative. Why wouldn't your bank remain on the App Store? Does the app store really lack that many dark patterns? (Billions spent gambling every year) Again: There is nothing to stop the walled gardens from being build, but they should be built within a competitive market!

[zb3]

> app owners might only make their apps available on THAT App Store

Because it's better for them and they have that right. If YOU need a safe walled garden, shouldn't YOU be the one who supports the process and incentives for developers?

[3form]

Is one store not just a different game of incentives? One where instead of going off to a different platform, your experience will be as enshittified as it can within the bounds of the one and only?

[whatsupdog]

Everybody should have a choice. You have a choice to go through Apple. The developer should have a choice to bypass Apple.