The same reason you have to have a car pass emissions in some states.
We can't deny the security that apple provides over other providers. Part of that is the closed garden - it SHOULD BE a product. The market should provide alternatives.
The only people that benefit from this are big companies - small software devs will have their apps devalued by this move, and the people will just get ripped off more when Epic wins and raises their dumb scam Vbucks to 10$.
You can easily argue the walled garden is for their user's common good, which it is. Less malware, safer experience, easier to use for less technically savvy people.
> Apple saying that I'm not allowed to step outside their walled garden on a device I own is restricting my freedom.
Only if there is no remediation - there is. Buy an android and quit moaning. "Freedoms." Laughable. Belarus is shooting people and you're mad because you can't force a company to do what you want when the free market can easily solve the problem.
You could argue that Microsoft bundling IE was 'for their user's common good' just the same. It was certainly nice and convenient, and made Windows easier to use. And it wasn't restricting anyone's freedom, because they could just use Unix instead.
Except none of those things are the point of antitrust law. But I guess who cares anyway, when genocide is always worse than these things, so we shouldn't care about them?
