You’re arguing a situation seems absurd to you and then working backwards. However we want to live by the Rule of Law so you need to put aside your commitment t

You’re arguing a situation seems absurd to you and then working backwards. However we want to live by the Rule of Law so you need to put aside your commitment to your sentiment that this is absurd and investigate what is really happening, and then form a constructive rules-based case that would be fair even to companies that aren’t Apple. The problem with committing to your sense this is absurd is that you are neglecting to check if it is absurd. Perhaps your own assertions are the problem. For instance the Apple App Store fee can also be negotiated. There is nothing preventing Apple or an app developer from negotiating prices. Famously they did with Amazon for instance. The crux of the Apple case is whether they may legitimately control what apps you may install on your own general purpose computer. That element is critical to not just Apple but how much power any computer manufacturer now and into the long future may possess. The shopping mall analogy doesn't hold because both sellers and buyers have access to the entire free market. It's not controlled by the landlord. I would guess your sense the situation is absurd is based on this, but you haven't been able to articulate it. However, it is very common to argue digital freedoms based on what we want and feel rather than what rules make sense, and that is necessarily critiqueable as a bad habit.