What's so bad about giving people the choice to do something to a device they bought? If they want to have the option to circumvent the walled garden that does

What's so bad about giving people the choice to do something to a device they bought? If they want to have the option to circumvent the walled garden that does not have any effect on you who resides inside those walls. Mandating a hardware vendor to make its products useable outside of the hardware vendor's control is just common sense and it is the way things tend to work after the resistance of colluding vendors has been broken down. Car vendors are not allowed to block car owners from using third-party parts but do not have the obligation to service those parts. White goods vendors similarly are not allowed to lock in white goods owners into using only 'certified' consumables and spare parts. Why do you feel compelled to try to justify these attempts by this vendor to be treated differently? If you feel happy inside the walls they built you why do you insist others remain inside as well? Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is not at all like saying there is no hope of developing an open platform - a silly statement given the dominance of such a platform on the world market. It is like telling Ford they can not force car owners they're only allowed to use Ford fuel, use a Ford navigation system, use Ford tyres, Ford oil, Ford customisation parts, Ford anything. It is like telling Chevrolet they do not get to syphon off 30% of the revenue a cab driver earns when he uses his vehicle to transport customers. It is like telling GM they're to refrain from mandating drivers only to shop at GM-approved stores, taking 30% of the revenue generated. That they only can have their vehicles serviced by GM dealers. Many of these things have been tried on the market, tried in court to be forbidden by law. Owners of these products still can choose to use only 'genuine' parts and consumables, only buy service from vendor-approved providers just like you would still be able to remain inside the walled garden even if others prefer the freedom outside of those walls. Why defend the indefensible?