On the Mac, where the App store is not required, a great deal of software is not in the App store and as a result the user does not benefit from App Store policies for said software. By forbidding sideloading, it forces developers to meet the App Store standards or not play at all. There are developers whose software is present on the iOS app store but the companion Mac app is not.

I don't like the complete lockout either. I like being able to run my apps on my device. But it is most definitely true that the ability to sideload apps results, in practice, in some developers opting out of providing App Store protected apps in favor of asking you to sideload.

It's not false though? Games are a thing. In the sense of how systems run and how actors make decisions in it, not in terms of video games. Any change that makes it convenient to run a competing app store will almost certainly change the experience of using iOS, even for those who choose not to use an alternative app store.

If there's a way to allow easily & conveniently running one's own software without letting competing app stores work, I'm all for it. In fact there is a way to run your own software, it's just inconvenient, because time-limited so you have to re-install it periodically, which effectively kills any possibility of running a successful app store via that method.

You're right in theory, but possibly not in practice.

Consider two vendors: A and G.

A provides a full walled garden. G provides a walled garden, but lets you side-load whatever you like, you can ignore the apps in the garden.

Everyone making apps for A puts them in the walled garden, so if you own an A, you buy an app from the garden.

For G, vendors decide for themselves whether to use the walled garden. Many choose to sell direct and avoid both the markup and the hassle of getting their apps approved.

They also get to make even more money by embedding surveillance capitalism into their apps if they sell direct. Or include completely unmoderated and unregulated adtech.

As a user, isn't G better than A, since I have the choice?

It is better than A, provided that every app in A's walled garden is also in G's walled garden. However, if in practice the apps I want to use are in A's walled garden, but sold direct on G to avoid the 30% hit, then in practice, as a user, I am better off with A if what I want are apps from the walled garden.

Of course, I can always do my research to figure out whether a side-loaded app on G is safe to use. But if what I wanted was to buy apps without having to think about them, then I can be better off with A in practice even though in theory, G provides everything A provides, and more.

Now, is there really a problem getting all the apps I use on A from G's walled garden? I don't personally know, since I don't want to go to the trouble of sorting out what is available in G's store versus what I have to sideload. So there's plenty of room to argue that in practice, G is superior to A.

But I do not think it is necessarily superior.