The App Store was always authoritarian

Device ownership, right to repair, and platform control

• Several comments argue that once a device is sold, the manufacturer should lose the right to dictate what software runs on it; anything else is framed as an ownership violation.
• Others push back by asking about ongoing responsibilities like safety, liability, and warranties, implying some post-sale control might be justified.
• Some see this as part of a broader right-to-repair / market-power issue, suggesting either legal limits on vendor control or on market share.

Security, paternalism, and user competence

• One side claims “the internet was fine before app stores,” arguing users should be allowed to make mistakes and learn, as with driving.
• Opponents cite major incidents (e.g., Maersk malware, scammy “ChatGPT” clones) to argue that centralized curation meaningfully protects non-technical users.
• There’s a recurring claim that most people are not equipped to detect malware, and that “protective” platforms will outcompete more permissive ones.
• Others counter that this is paternalism that trades user freedom for small conveniences and creates dangerous central points of control.

Web vs native apps and browser gatekeeping

• Some reject the idea that the web should be the primary computing platform, arguing many tasks are better served by native apps and curated stores, just as Linux distros do.
• Critics note that centralization is only acceptable if stores are optional and not controlled solely by the OS vendor.
• Multiple comments blame Apple for deliberately hobbling PWAs and web standards to protect App Store revenue; WebAssembly is raised as an underused alternative.
• A nostalgia thread prefers the 1990s model of native apps plus open protocols, relegating the web to documents/hypermedia.

App stores, censorship, and authoritarian alignment

• Commenters emphasize that centralized app stores are highly convenient tools for authoritarian governments; both Apple and Google routinely honor state takedown demands.
• Apple’s own transparency numbers (≈1,700 government-driven removals/year, on top of ~2M rejections and ~80k internal removals) are used to show the scale of gatekeeping.
• Some see this power as “mostly” beneficial (blocking harmful apps) with some abuse; others compare it to banning printing presses because they can print dissent.
• “Software is speech” comes up, with the point that even if platforms have editorial rights, the speech stakes and potential for political abuse are very high.

Android vs iOS, alternative stores, and lived experience

• Several developers describe iOS as uniquely hostile and slow to publish for, compared with web and Android.
• Others report Android’s openness leading to worse scam/noise experiences, especially via third-party app stores and OEM intermediaries.
• Some argue the right solution is multiple vetted and community stores, or “advanced user” modes, rather than a single dictatorial gatekeeper or total anarchy.

Scale, corporate power, and political context

• There’s debate over whether large firms have special duties “as a function of scale,” with some holding Apple to higher standards due to its ecosystem reach.
• Comparisons are made between Apple’s 30% cut and state taxation, portraying Apple as a quasi-state with flat revenue tax and power to erase businesses overnight.
• Broader pessimism appears about governments meaningfully reining in these platforms, given regulatory capture and rising authoritarian tendencies.