Apple likes to claim that their locked down walled garden approach gives users a better experience, but it's interesting to see how poorly it fares when customers/developers are actually given an actual choice.
The Windows 11 store is such a better experience, basically acting like a user-friendly package manager that doesn't arbitrarily restrict which apps can be on it based on runtime or whatever. Why can't I have Chrome in the Mac App Store? Why does Apple need to review every update, why do they need their arbitrary "sandboxing" restrictions when Chrome (which may not pass the MAS requirements) has stronger sandboxing than any Apple app, including Safari? Why restrict devs so much, when it results in a dead Mac App Store, when it could have instead led to a revival of the Mac app landscape? Why the 30% tax? (can you imagine a Linux package manager making devs pay to be on it, and, somehow if package mangaers supported paid apps, taking 30% of the sale price?) Why not allow users to redeem apps on the Mac App Store if purchased elsewhere, like you've been able to do for years on the Windows Store? The Mac App Store is a great example of Apple insisting on defending the indefensible, at the cost of user experience, developer loyalty, their brand, and their ecosystem? So shortsighted.
I'm taking this app maker's divorce announcement with a grain of salt, their wording suggests they want to get back together soon as Apple get a nicer garden gate ornament.