IMO the best argument Apple has made in this case so far was made in the last couple days: In practice, what the App Store protects users from is social attacks

IMO the best argument Apple has made in this case so far was made in the last couple days: In practice, what the App Store protects users from is social attacks - phishing, malicious software, privacy violations, etc. The only way to protect users from social attacks is for Apple to control everything and aggressively reject anything that might threaten customers. This is, as far as I can tell, probably true. However the data seems to support that Apple isn't doing a great job at it, for example in recent testimony it was argued that they spend an average of 10 minutes per app on review. Given that they don't have access to app source code (and apps are allowed to use interpreters, so they can download new code at run-time), it's questionable how much protection we actually get out of that. I think if they really want to protect users they have to spend more time in review and block downloading of code after review. Alongside that: I really don't like the idea of Apple having full control over my general-purpose computing devices and deciding what I'm allowed to do with them. I'm no RMS-tier zealot, but I do really find that distasteful. On the other hand... I would prefer for my mom and grandma to be protected from social attacks. It really sucks. I'm fond of Epic's argument that a 30% cut is too much, but beyond that, Apple's arguments about control have real merit.