The argument isn't whether specific parties should produce malicious apps. Obviously any rational person would say no, depending upon what your own definition o

The argument isn't whether specific parties should produce malicious apps. Obviously any rational person would say no, depending upon what your own definition of malicious is (many have argued that a consenting party being paid $20 per month in exchange for data collected from their device is not malicious). The argument is whether Apple should be the arbiter of what is considered a proper use case for an app or whether an individual should be. This argument is as old as the hills. Should the government be able to dictate to me what the correct size of a soda at McDonald's is? This is roughly the same argument. Although in Apple's case I think the restrictions have more to do with creating a reputation for consistency and quality. I can install most any software I want on my PC but because of that you could argue the overall experience on a PC is sub-optimal compared to an iOS device. It's all about what's important to you. Personally I think Apple should be able to enforce whatever restrictions it chooses for its apps and customers are free to pick a different device with fewer restrictions. The developers are the ones who don't have a choice in this because they have to make apps for iOS if they want to get the largest possible user base so they have to abide by Apple's rules. I think the antitrust case for developers against Apple is pretty strong at this point, but I think the argument that I should be able to install what I want because it's my device is pretty weak.