Since the onset of the iTunes Music Store and iPods, Apple has been fundamentally involved in curation.  Over the intervening 10 years, they've been responsible for an enormous stream of creative decisions about what sort of media to promote.  It began with music, but it's spread exponentially over that time.  I would argue in terms of recommending exceptional content to their users, Apple's curation skills are among the best I’ve seen.  The iTMS (and now the App Stores') staff has a powerful collective eye for quality, and I'd even acknowledge that I've been turned on to quite a few good artists, apps, and even podcasts & films as a result of their efforts. 

The most important part of this curation, though—for me at least—is that it's suggestive, not compulsory.  Users were given two important freedoms with iTunes curation:  one, you always had access to the most popular content other users were buying, unrefined, uncommented on by Apple.  Second,  you were always invited and encouraged to purchase your music, and later your movies, TV shows, podcasts, and so on, through iTunes, but it was never a mandatory affair.  With the App Store, the latter freedom is gone, and I believe this change has unearthed deep, fundamental problems for Apple with regards to its moral position.

If you search the iTunes Store for a film you'd like to buy or rent, a show you'd like to watch, or a song you wish to listen to, and it isn't on there, there is an obvious course to take: find it somewhere else; as long as it is in an appropriate format, it can be dropped into your iTunes Library, and onto your device without fanfare.  Apple doesn't care if you want it; it's your business.  They just aren't going to sell it to you.

With iOS devices, the App Store is your only way of getting apps for your device.  Certainly, web content exists, but there is only so much one can do with web apps, and you cannot access those at all if you aren't connected to the internet.  Separate, but unequal is the name of the game.  This situation would not inherently be a problem if Apple wasn't also in the business of being a content curator.  If all they did to certify apps ready for App Store sale was check them for malware & vulnerabilities, make sure they worked flawlessly, and let them go, it would still be restrictive, but it wouldn't be a real moral problem.  Unfortunately, Apple has, over the years, proven to be quite restrictive of apps. 

If the content is "adult" in nature, it cannot be on the App Store.  If it fills a market niche too many other apps have already filled, it cannot be on the App Store.  If it's an add-on for another app, if it makes significant appearance changes to the OS or how it functions, if it re-enables options Apple has disabled, if it helps you to downgrade your OS to an earlier one, if it modifies any underlying services, if it enables piracy, if it tells you where police speed traps are, and anything else Apple decides, on a dime, that it doesn't want to support or encourage, it cannot be on the App Store: your one and only source for installing apps on your iOS device. 

To reiterate, with iTunes, and with the Mac, Apple's stance on restricted content was, essentially, "If you're that kind of user which wants or needs  ________ on her device, fine by us; we're not going to provide you with that content, but you can put it on yourself."  With the App Store being the only available platform, Apple's stance is essentially, "If you're that kind of user which wants or needs  _________ on her device, you shouldn't be buying our products; we don't want you as a customer." 

If you wanted more multi-touch gestures, or home button customizations, or to be able to access your WiFi, 3G, and Bluetooth settings from within other apps: get over it, or get something else.   If you want a free, independently developed, iOS-specific Flash plugin alternative*, to get you by on crucial websites which refuse to change: get over it, or get something else.  If you wanted that originally announced Playboy app:  get over it, or get something else.   If you want to be able to "skin," or "theme" your iPhone or iPad, in ways Apple has not provided for you; if you prefer another iOS developer's proposed solution for multitasking or notifications, if you want multitasking AT ALL and your device isn't using iOS 4.0 or higher: get over it, or get something else.  Apple, it would seem, is a jealous gardener: if you do not want its curation and only its curation, you may not have it at all.

With the onset of the App Store, Apple's curation goes far beyond what it ever has been for any other platform, any other kind of content.  I would still argue that it's excellent in its ability to promote exceptional content, both with the Staff picks and its Categories & "Top Paid/Free" system.  But disallowing apps from any other sources is intellectual totalitarianism, and a shameful departure from Apple’s independent, different, excellent ethos.  It resembles the US government's "war on drugs": employing flimsy reasoning (ultimately backed by: “because we said so”) to waste the time and resources of talented developers.  And the crazy thing is, the people working against Apple in this conflict don’t hate Apple.  They love it.  They do what they do because they love it. 

*I am aware of Apple’s arguments set out in Steve Jobs’s “Thoughts On Flash.”  I fully agree that the disappearance of Flash as a web platform will, in the long run, be better for everyone except Adobe.  And I’m not suggesting that, if Apple allowed it, that they should provide any sort of support for it.  I’m merely pointing out that being part of an ideological movement to discourage the use of bad web platforms isn’t enough for users who need to access Flash-exclusive content for business purposes.  “Get a Mac/Windows machine” is certainly an answer, but I think that it only proves my point about Apple’s stance here.