[ConservativeMind]

I’d say Apple should allow other sales options, but that only Apple-certified/reviewed apps be allowed on iPhones.

That might mean Apple charges all paid apps a 5-8% fee instead of 30%. Then Apple could keep their walled garden just as secure as it is now.

[SunkenCiv]

Yeah, nothing like economic democracy and economic justice.

[ScubaDiver]

I think that probably shouldn’t fly, either. To me, Apple really screwed the pooch when they banned Parler, effectively disallowing it to run on any of its OS including iOS. Imagine the antitrust pitchforks that would be out for Microsoft if Microsoft retained the ability to foreclose specific applications from running on its operating system. People would be pissed, rightly and governments would respond with fine threats.

Apple should be allowed to offer a walled garden for users who want to the benefits and security of a walled garden. But, for others, they have to make it easier to sideload apps on every OS.

[SunStar]

I’d say Apple should allow other sales options, but that only Apple-certified/reviewed apps be allowed on iPhones.

I think device users should be allowed to directly/side-load apps onto their iPhones, just like they can on Android. This is why Google isn't being sued too. Epic could then offer their app directly to their users, Apple can offer what they want on their store. That would be called "freedom". I've been waiting for someone to challenge Apple on this issue, and I'm very happy to see Epic try.