Market decisions don’t do anything to prevent the tragedy of the commons - is the general answer. I have mixed opinions on this specific case, but I absolutely see how this could make things worse. If everyone starts releasing their own versions, and not offering the apps in the App Store anymore, than the people who prefer the walled garden (for which there are good reasons to want) then they lose that choice. It’s possible that doesn’t happen - and allowing people that don’t want the walled garden should also have that choice, but you can’t simply boil this complex question down to “free market”. It’s intellectually dishonest, at best.

Counter-example: I don't want crappy ElectronJS apps, but I don't have a choice. Discord/Slack don't have an open API that would allow a good third-party client.

If I don't like PWAs but WhatsApp stops supporting anything else, how can I use WhatsApp without the PWA?

They won’t have a choice. Low quality crap is cheaper to make so in a lot of cases that is all there will be.

And they don't. How come Android still has apps that are not PWAs?

Because markets sometimes fail so it pays to be sure if that would or wouldn't happen. How many Android customers choose an app based on its API? What is the quality of the Android store? Why would it work differently for an Apple Store?

> It's common sense to let "the market decide" -- why not in this case?

Apple is the market here. If people wants to have PWAs they do not buy Apple products.

But in reality "the market decide" is not common sense - that is why we have regulations.

in this specific case its Google decision, not whole market, Google is usurping web space and web standards