> As soon as Apple is constrained, everyone else who can impose requirements will do so.
But that's precisely where the distinction matters -- there can be a hundred stores with onerous requirements, but if there is nothing requiring you to use any of them, you don't.
It's obviously a problem if you're required to use a specific store instead of the one you want to, but that's the problem today -- it's the thing requiring them to allow anyone to open a store would address. If Apple is the only store on your device and the government pressures Apple to reject an app you want, you can't get it. If anyone can open a store and the government pressures Apple to reject an app you want, you get it from a store that government can't pressure, or side load it.
Allowing someone to use another store and forcing them to use it are independent actions.
> Even in the most free market of countries, you’ll end up with a small set of corporations you don’t trust as he only viable stores.
How does that make any logical sense? We already see on Android that there exist stores operated by trustworthy entities, like F-Droid. Opening up to other stores wouldn't cause Apple's store to cease to exist, if you trust them. And if you don't then having alternatives available still wouldn't be any worse than the status quo.
Would a non-zero number of people use the store? Of course. But voluntarily, and with the realistic option not to, which isn't tied to their choice of hardware or operating system.
And enough people wouldn't that Facebook would still feel a lot of pressure to have their app in Apple's store under Apple's rules, or at least some store and some set of rules that the users actually trust.
But that's precisely where the distinction matters -- there can be a hundred stores with onerous requirements, but if there is nothing requiring you to use any of them, you don't.
It's obviously a problem if you're required to use a specific store instead of the one you want to, but that's the problem today -- it's the thing requiring them to allow anyone to open a store would address. If Apple is the only store on your device and the government pressures Apple to reject an app you want, you can't get it. If anyone can open a store and the government pressures Apple to reject an app you want, you get it from a store that government can't pressure, or side load it.
Allowing someone to use another store and forcing them to use it are independent actions.
> Even in the most free market of countries, you’ll end up with a small set of corporations you don’t trust as he only viable stores.
How does that make any logical sense? We already see on Android that there exist stores operated by trustworthy entities, like F-Droid. Opening up to other stores wouldn't cause Apple's store to cease to exist, if you trust them. And if you don't then having alternatives available still wouldn't be any worse than the status quo.