If there’s a future where there’s an app that requires me to install their store on my device to have the privilege of buying their app, I’m simply not buying that app.
I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in that.
The existence of an option does not force you to choose that option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
Even recently, the EU has been pushing for less safety for users.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/eu_casm_expert_identi...
More generally, your argument doesn't really hold up. Apple's never owned slaves. Apple's never killed coal miners. Apple's never put humans into concentration camps. The United States Government has done all of these things. Why should anyone trust it?
I say this as someone who strongly opposed any kind of mandatory apps.
Why is it so hard to understand that market pressure will affect you indirectly.
Monopolies are harmful to even those who will never step outside Apple's walled garden... The mere threat from the EU, and anti-trust hearings in the US has already benefitted you by reducing the commission from 30% to 17% for apps with revenue under $1M.
This also assumes that Apple won't make their store more friendly to developers once they have competition... i.e that app that would have never existed could now exist in Apple's store because they are forced to actually compete. As I said - indirect benefits.
The old terms had it at 15% (small business program).