If alternative stores equated to better software, then Android would have easily outpaced Apple by now.
The only people who would benefit from forcing Apple to allow alternative stores are the unscrupulous middlemen who would run them.
This is just literally wrong, by-definition.
You can claim that Apple's monopoly isn't illegal or harmful, but the monopoly itself is self-evident. You cannot distribute software without Apple; their system is designed with monopolistic capability.
> The only people who would benefit from forcing Apple to allow alternative stores are the unscrupulous middlemen who would run them.
Source? You're inventing hypothetical claims to support your rhetoric.
No it's not. There are plenty of ways to distribute software without Apple being involved at all.
Perhaps you meant to argue that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, but that's not actually what was originally written. It's also highly questionable given that the courts have rejected "iOS software distribution" as a valid antitrust market for the purpose of monopolization claims.
It has a monopoly on iPhone software distribution... which is why they can set the fee at 27% without competition...
Not among Mac developers who distributed their software over the web directly to customers, bypassing the middlemen.
Also, little did we know at the time that the App Store would inaugurate a race to the bottom, devaluing software. What does the cut even matter if you have to sell software at the same price as a music single?
It is your choice on how to contemplate how full a glass is.
What? No, my point is developers would get a better deal when there isn't a monopoly on the distribution. Is it not obvious that the 27% fee is only possible due to lack of competition? That if there were other stores selling iPhone apps then competition would drive down the 27% fee?
