I agree with this sentiment... But I wonder if Apple considers iPhones to be general purpose computing devices, or even wants them to be. They're not marketed that way, likely most users are uninterested in using an iPhone this way.
A separate concern is around anticompetitive behavior. There is no way to sideload an app, or even use a competing app store, and Apple is charging rent. This is pretty clearly anticompetitive behavior that harms consumers.
> I agree with this sentiment... But I wonder if Apple considers iPhones to be general purpose computing devices, or even wants them to be. They're not marketed that way, likely most users are uninterested in using an iPhone this way.
But iPads (though iOS was renamed/forked to iPadOS on those devices) are definitely marketed as general purpose computing devices. The headline on https://www.apple.com/ipad/ is "Your next computer is not a computer".
iPad/iPadOS have these same restrictions as iPhone/iOS.
While it looks like kortilla was being downvoted for their reply quoting back "is not a computer", I think it's actually completely on point. To date, Apple has consistently treated iOS devices -- including the iPad -- as "application consoles," not open computing platforms. It's not just that applications can only officially be installed through the App Store, but that applications are "boxed in" both literally (i.e., sandboxing) and metaphorically (no practical way to run development tools and, from appearances, no interest on Apple's part in changing that).
I'm not arguing this is necessarily either wise or ethical of them, and there's a real sense in which this is orthogonal to the App Store's fee structure. But it seems to me that while Apple is going to face increasing pressure to change the way they run the App Store, the solution -- at least the solution Apple will offer -- very likely won't involve letting the iPad become a general purpose computer the way the Mac is.
Not to mention that the transition to Apple Silicon will lead to the total integration of the Mac App Store into the iOS store, so these policies are going to merge at some point and literally apply to general computers too
I would be thrilled to learn that Apple plans to prevent anyone from running non-Apple-signed code on the Mac, because it would likely lead to better tools for writing iDevice-targetted software on non-Mac platforms (either officially supported, or jury-rigged by third parties out of necessity). As a Linux desktop user with an iPhone, this would inevitably benefit me (I don't write iPhone software right now, but if there was an iPhone compiler for Linux, I might start).
Why do you think Microsoft bothered with WSL? We know that most Windows users won't do it. It was a developer-attracting move, meant to make it easier to build Windows client applications with Linux server components. Apple benefits from the same thing being offered natively. I can't see them abandoning it, even though it does create a tension between the Mac as a consumer product and the Mac as a developer's tool for iOS.
It's also going to require mandatory brain microchips to ensure all of the user's thoughts conform to Apple policies /s
All of this is still unknown outside of Apple. What is known so far seems to me like it's pointing in the direction of a pretty open macOS and a very much locked down iOS, to satisfy different needs. We'll know more by late fall, I guess.
A separate concern is around anticompetitive behavior. There is no way to sideload an app, or even use a competing app store, and Apple is charging rent. This is pretty clearly anticompetitive behavior that harms consumers.