As pointed before, the apple app store is incompatible with GPL. With the notarization system it makes it necessary for developers to at the very least use apple's proprietary toolkit to release their software. The FSF has a big list, I find some of the items a bit exaggerated, but most are legitimate points: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.en.html
Anyway, user freedom is the main point of free software and, supposedly, of the original article. In that sense, it's hard to argue that Apple ranks any higher than even MS.
You do not need to use the App Store, you can just distribute software yourself.
The app store being incompatible with the GPL is really the choice of the writers of the GPL and those who use it as their license. Other open source licenses are not incompatible with it, it is just the GPL that chose to be.
You merely pointed that it's technically possible to write free software for macs, which I never disputed. My point that macs (and apple) are a hostile environment for free software still stands. By the way, GPL is not a fringe license no one cares about as you kind of hint at, but it is one of the largest licenses out there and a lot of people like its terms.
Moreover, you didn't even address the point that Apple makes it increasingly difficult (and sometimes even impossible) to distribute code for their platform without the use of their proprietary SDK. That, of course, is an artificial requirement by Apple, yet again signiling that they are not friendly towards free softwre.
Note that, a hostile environment for free software does not mean that there is no free software or that free software is impossible. If that was the case, I would've used that wording. It's hostile because it makes it harder for free software to exist and because it does not integrate/cooperate well with free software.
Anyway, user freedom is the main point of free software and, supposedly, of the original article. In that sense, it's hard to argue that Apple ranks any higher than even MS.