Your argument only works if people are forced to use iPhones or if you can show that reasonable people expect to have functionality on their iPhones that doesn’t exist. But on the contrary, I suspect a lot of people choose iPhones specifically because of the perceived curation of the App Store and lack of malware, spyware, etc.
In my experience people choose iPhones because they are a status symbol, and because Apple has become synonymous with good design and good taste. Due to marketing efforts, Android devices are still seen as the "cheap option" or for people who don't care about their image. Many people are also already locked into the Apple ecosystem through desktop/laptop Macs, iCloud, etc., so getting a non-Apple phone would introduce a lot of friction into their experience.
Part of it is also that iOS used to be quite far ahead of Android when it came to usability and polish. Android has since mostly caught up, but there is an advantage to being a first mover, and the people who didn't like Android back when it was much worse have since gotten locked into Apple's ecosystem, even if they never used Apple products before that.
I don't think most people seriously think about App Store curation as any of top reasons why they have an iPhone.
But iPhones and Android devices do have functionality that users can’t obtain anywhere else. What alternative smartphone ecosystem could the average user choose as a substitute? To say nothing of the fact a smartphone is essentially required in and of itself.
Once a user has chosen a smartphone ecosystem large switching costs come into play.
If a significant amount of your customers choose your phone because it is stylish that could just as well demonstrate there is no price competition to speak of.
Will it, though? My expectation is that most apps will still want to be on the main App Store if they can, since installing a third-party app store still represents friction to the install experience.
Perhaps in a more mature market where having several app stores on your phone is commonplace (assuming that even happens), we'll have an annoying situation of exclusives, but I don't expect that "instantly" or even remotely so.
How else should Epic compete? They can't reduce the price in line with their 12% cut vs steam's 30%, because steam doesn't allow games to have cheaper prices elsewhere.
Which now that I think of it seems anticompetitive from Valve.
Exactly this - exclusives are a standard move which we can be guaranteed will be used if multiple apps stores are allowed on iOS.
It won’t help consumers or developers, but it will allow epic and other well funded companies to insert themselves into a revenue stream without creating value.
Well funded app stores will just pay up front for exclusives. It’s completely standard practice in any comparable industry. Music, TV, Movies, books, podcasts, etc.
Developers might abstractly prefer to be on the main store, but some will be happy to take million dollar payouts from the marketing budgets of the new stores.
It’s hard enough for independents to be successful now, but once you have competing publishers like Epic in the game, the era of independent commercial app development will be over.
If Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.
But it is actually you who want to control how other people use their own phone, that they own.
If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it. Problem solved.
That way, people who want to trust apple get what they want, as well as people who want to trust other app stores.
Everyone wins, right? Why do you care so much about how other people use their own phone?