> I would rather that developers do not have the choice to choose an app store where anything goes.

That's not up to you. What you get to decide is which stores you're willing to install apps from. If lots of people refuse to install apps from unrestrictive stores then developers who want to reach those users will have to meet the requirements of more restrictive stores.

You would only not have this choice if the app has a dominant market position, and then can force you to get it from a store you don't want to use. But then your problem isn't an overabundance of trust busting, it's an insufficiency of it.

More similar in that they force them to obey the regulations, yes. But regulations cover things like interoperability & anti-competitive behaviour, and here retaliatory actions. I'd very much like _all_ choices to be forced to behave the same w.r.t. not being able to retaliate against protected action, or all be forced to follow the same laws.

There are plenty of ways to differentiate in a competitive market. Good regulations set baselines for fair play, both toward customers and competitors. Whether or not that makes some aspects of those choices more similar isn't really relevant. Or if it is, it's because it makes them similar in good ways. Ways that are pro-customer and pro-competition, but they won't do unless legally required.

Sure. In the same way that all sports are similar in that most have regulations against fighting.