Not a downvoter but the reasoning that criminal action means we should give up the promise of general computation and freedom to use devices we "own" as we choose for walled gardens that massively enrich corporate gatekeepers is repugnant. We should catch criminals, fix security problems, maximise openness of platforms and competition and distribute wealth to a multitude of small independent creators instead of middlemen rent-seekers.
Somehow, typical prices for software on app stores are considerably lower than independently distributed software was. Apple seems to have succeeded at commoditizing their complements, even ignoring the cut they take. I'm not sure how this got established as the equilibrium, but as a developer I don't want to participate in that role, and as a user I wish there was more great software, and suspect there would be if it hadn't become so commoditized.
(I also agree that walled gardens are bad for freedom.)
This is definitely the case on mobile where everything has been driven to 99c or free, but the Mac App Store still has a healthy range of prices, including a bunch of desktop software in the $20-$100 range.
The argument above for walled-gardens is repugnant because its an argument for a totalitarian police state. Removing rent-seeking does not address anti-competitiveness or destruction of fundamental computational freedoms.
Gardens (safe curated places) are nice things to have but if you erect walls preventing us from leaving they become abusive. Rent-seeking is one of those abuses. Let us have many gardens and let them compete for our presence by the value they can bring.
Our industry's unparalleled track record of success catching criminals, fixing security problems, creating usable and secure software, and so forth continue to provide a great platform for end users. That's why online account theft, hacking, and malware are increasingly small problems.
Abject failure for 20+ years is no reason to believe this won't work any day now.
