You have plenty of options. Your argument is basically that Wal-Mart is everywhere, so Wal-Mart should be forced to serve you on your terms.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632804/epic-google-laws...
Meanwhile, you reference Cydia (my alternative to the App Store), but I am myself suing Apple for over their efforts to lock us out competing on iOS.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/10/cydia-a...
It made my experience of owning my first (and last) iPhone so much better - thanks very much for that, always a fan. Iirc, I was also able to buy one or two apps there, but my memory may be hazy.
I hope you're successful with your Apple lawsuit.
It sounds really lame to say, but it feels like what you're suggesting is the exact opposite of what the market wants. People want a device they can give to their kid without worrying that they'll mess it up.
And I don't think this is an issue where any side actually cares about freedom; you allow proprietary software on Cydia, which sort of kills the user freedom argument, but even then, people would still be free to just buy a phone that supports them using their phone in a way they want to.
If that's what the market wanted then Apple wouldn't have to spend so much money on preventing their customers from rooting their phones, running any apps they want to run and using alternative mobile app distribution methods.
> People want a device they can give to their kid without worrying that they'll mess it up.
Chromebooks are those devices, which is one of the reasons they're used in education. There were 40 million Chromebooks in public schools and about 53 million K-12 students in the US in 2019.
You can run whatever Android or Linux software you want on them, and use whatever mobile app distribution you want, too, like F-Droid.
I hope you get somewhere with the complaint.
Is that sarcasm? All of those combined don't even have 0.5% of the market.
There's no competition, period.
For example is there competition in the "operating system for Samsung microwaves" market ?
They are negligible.
Back when the Amazon app store first started, they gave away a high quality free app every week. Great for user acquisition, then IIRC they stopped paying the app developers whose apps they were giving away, and the quality of the store overall started to drop off soon after.
If Amazon had made a play of taking a much smaller % of payment fees, sales and subs, they could have continued building momentum and been a serious competitor.
I presume they decided not to for some good reason, but the potential was there.
If Wal-Mart had nearly the prevalence of Google Play (on Android) and the App Store (on iOS), it should probably have some cap on its cut, too.