> Why shouldn't a private business be allowed to control what third party software it allows on its platform?
There's this thing called "consumer rights" that exists to ensure corporates do not screw us with their products and services. That's why.
> There's no misrepresentation to the customer,
The consumer is being lied to here that this is all being done to protect their privacy where as the actual objective is to even more intrusively spy on its users through these controls, and use this data to exploit them more. And this control also works to exploit developers.
> ... and the customer has other options if they aren't happy with it.
That already assumes that corporates have more more rights over their products than their consumers who pay to own it. If a product is owned by a customer, they should be able to do what they want with it as they are the owners.
> Developers benefit from apple's strengths and relation with its customers.
No, they absolutely don't. Developers benefit better when they strengthen their own relationship with the customers, without Apple as a middleman dictating terms to them and charging them exorbitantly for the same. Apple even goes to the extent of limiting functionalities, to retain its control.
> It's a fantasy to pretend that disruption to the model will simply rearrange the bottom line without doing structural damage to the entire endeavor.
That's a huge exaggeration. Even otherwise, it doesn't matter if said disruption sinks Apple. Another will take their place.