In other words, you're drawing lines where it's convenient for you to draw them?
If anything, the fact that iOS allows you to do a lot more than just gaming and without charging the consumers or the developers most of the time, makes iOS a lot friendlier environment to developers than eShop.
- Apps that are free to you aren’t charged by Apple.
- Apps that earn revenue exclusively through advertising — like free games & Youtube — aren’t charged by Apple.
- App business transactions where users sign up or purchase digital goods outside the app aren’t charged by Apple (including Spotify).
- Apps that sell physical goods — including ride-hailing and food delivery services, to name a few — aren’t charged by Apple
- 84 percent of the apps in the App Store pay nothing to Apple when you download or use the app
And again, this laser-focus criticism of Apple when they only have less than 25% market share globally makes no sense whatsoever. And to clarify, I don't believe the Switch is a monopoly for creating the sole exciting handheld environment that devs profit from, because that environment wouldn't have existed without their product in the first place.
Stop this garbage talk about subjectivity, I'm being respectful to you.
There are many more options than the Switch for gaming. For smartdevice computing, depending on the region, Apple has a very big marketshare, which should concern you.
The rules you listed are true today, but they are dictated by a company that has too much power at the moment, shared with only one rival: Google.
And no surprise that Google is also being watched for monopolistic practices in the way it buys out and kills competition, among other things. Apple is also currently under an anti-trust hearing, along with Amazon and Facebook.
No, padib. There's only Switch for handheld gaming. Nintendo owns pretty much 100% of the market. But if you insist on your logic that there are many more options than Switch (which would then be PlayStation, Xbox, PC, smartphones, tablets etc.), then the same has to apply the other way around for Apple's store that houses games in addition to all sorts of other apps. Apple doesn't control the game market, heck, they are not even remotely close within their own segment of mobile gaming where iOS has a marketshare of ~25%.
Did you know that every iPhone user can open Safari and buy Fortnite microtransactions directly from Epic's site without Apple getting a cut from the transaction? That is allowed by Apple. What Epic insists on with their lawsuit is that they are supposed to get direct access to the market that Apple built without having to compensate Apple for it in any form.
Epic's case against Google is very similar. Epic had pulled Fortnite from the Google Play store in 2019 to provide it only through their own store on Android, but then in 2020 Epic brought Fortnite back to Google Play. The issue that Epic has is that they want direct access to the market that Google built without having to compensate Google for it in any form.
Going further with this, you have to ask yourself why Epic didn't target Nintendo, PS and Xbox yet, because all console manufacturers' ecosystems are even more closed than iOS. The reason why Epic didn't do it is because a core part of their strategy is to instrumentalize gamers to pressure other big companies into giving in to their demands. But what would happen if Epic tried to turn console gamers against console manufacturers over their free-to-play game; do you think console gamers would side with Epic on this? The answer is obvious, hence why Epic's way of how they go about all of this is so laughably inconsistent and full of holes.