> Nobody is demanding that you make a personal change.

Then in that case I am not demanding that anyone else make a personal change. So you can stop suggesting that I am. Thanks.

> Your existing choice would still available to you even if sideloading were an option, so you would not be making a change, because you are not being asked to take any action. On the other hand, you are demanding others to make a change by switching ecosystems, an action that others are not inclined to take due to the costs of switching. Your demand is gatekeeping because you are arguing that people should be iOS users only if they are against sideloading, which is not an opinion that all iOS users agree with.

One at a time:

> Your existing choice would still available to you even if sideloading were an option, so you would not be making a change, because you are not being asked to take any action

Your premise is that the app store is just a single isolated app that has no effect on the ecosystem. This is a faulty premise. If additional app stores are introduced it unequivocally changes the ecosystem. I've already explained the reasons I believe this is negative.

> On the other hand, you are demanding others to make a change by switching ecosystems

They don't have to change ecosystems. Just keep the same one as it is.

> an action that others are not inclined to take due to the costs of switching.

They could have not bought an iPhone from the start. All features have costs and trade-offs. If I buy a BMW I can't go off roading in it like I can in a Jeep. I can't then demand that all BMWs come with off-road tires and a lift kit and then claim that others are causing me to incur switching costs. Your suggestion here is a non-sequitur.

> Your demand is gatekeeping because you are arguing that people should be iOS users only if they are against sideloading, which is not an opinion that all iOS users agree with.

Ok, then equivalently you are gatekeeping by limiting my access to the Apple ecosystem as is. If you want to use the term like that, then fine.

> you are arguing that people should be iOS users only if they are against sideloading, which is not an opinion that all iOS users agree with.

Ok then not all iOS users agree with gatekeeping around the ecosystem as is. Stop gatekeeping.

> Lawmakers are elected to pass laws that represent the interests of their country's citizens, such as the Open App Markets Act[1] in the U.S., which would prevent Apple from enforcing its anti-competitive restriction against sideloading on iOS.

Yes, lawmakers can pass any law they want, whether or not its in the interest of their country's citizens. For example, requiring that Apple let 3rd-party App Stores on the iPhone would be against the interest of citizens.

Apple's model is not anti-competitive.

> Duopolies and uncompetitive markets like Apple's and Google's duopoly on mobile app stores result in deadweight loss,[2] which limits economic growth.

Your implication is that economic growth for the sake of economic growth should be pursued. Environmental regulations can create deadweight loss and limit economic growth as well yet we still pursue those.

Restricting Apple's ability to bargain on behalf of users creates negative externalities (previously highlighted) whose costs outweigh any deadweight loss. And again, markets aren't completely efficient, duopolies naturally exist in markets, and they can have minimal deadweight loss such that the presence of the duopoly is more beneficial than introducing competitors.

Also, where you claim Duopoly remember that Apple competes with many companies, such as Huawei, Samsung, Google (both Android and Pixel), and others.

> This and the fact that restrictions against sideloading limit consumer choice are why there is momentum for passing new antitrust laws that curb Apple's and Google's anti-competitive behavior, including Apple's prohibition against competing app stores on iOS.

Limiting consumer choice is perfectly fine. Happens all the time and should continue to happen where it makes sense to do so, such as here.

> You are free to wish otherwise and to petition lawmakers to support Apple's monopoly/duopoly, but the momentum of legislation is going against your wishes.

Ah the ole' love it or leave it sentiment.

> Your store analogy is flawed because when someone owns an iPhone, that phone is the user's property, not Apple's property. On the other hand, Walmart stores, Kroger stores, and Apple's App Store belong to Walmart, Kroger, and Apple, not their customers. Apple imposing restrictions on phones that do not belong to them is completely different from Apple imposing restrictions on their own App Store.

It's not flawed because the question of ownership isn't what's at stake here. Introducing that would change the scenario. Instead what was being discussed was Apple's distribution model for iOS applications. You can think of each shopper as an individual iPhone/iPhone user.

> Sideloading does not involve Apple or Apple's App Store at all, it only involves the user and the source that the user chooses to obtain the app from.

And just for the sake of clarity since you're now using the term sideloading I'm interpreting that to mean 3rd-party app store. Idk why we've switched but w/e.

Of course you can do anything you want to your iPhone. It's your property. You can install any app, you can throw it off a bridge. Anything really. You can even install 3rd-party App Stores. Just figure out how to do it.

> You can choose to shop exclusively at Apple, Walmart, or Kroger, and the existence of other separate stores would not prevent you from continuing to do so.

Yes, but this isn't about switching stores, that would change what's happening and so we'd have to build a meta store on top of these stores just to get back to what the model looks like. Instead what you're discussing here would be switching between Android and iOS. (Wal-Mart and Kroger or w/e). Once inside we're back to the correct analogy.

> App stores available to users in China do not have to be hosted in China.

They'll just pass a law to make them hosted in China then or whatever they'd need to have the exact same leverage here that they would on Apple, Google, or any other provider. All the same stuff.

> Sideloading combined with a VPN would allow iOS users in China to download, install, and use any iOS app published in any country.

Great. Then just sideload apps (as opposed to 3rd-party app stores) as you normally do and we'll just keep the single App Store that Apple maintains.