Not true, the eBay analogy is pretty flawed. Unlike with eBay this isn’t a matter of simply shifting classification of revenue - the app store is guaranteed to

Not true, the eBay analogy is pretty flawed. Unlike with eBay this isn’t a matter of simply shifting classification of revenue - the app store is guaranteed to be the most convenient and obvious way to charge for any given app or service related to that app due to Apple’s other rules. They prevent developers from mentioning or linking other payments avenues. And if you want to charge in app of course it’s only via Apple. From what I’ve seen only big existing and strong brand services like Netflix are able to overcome these barriers and even some of those still pay Apples feee (Spotify). The playing field remains tilted heavily in Apples favor. But they (apparently) wanted even more - extensive compensation for economic activity that happens far from the App Store even when the link to the App Store is secondary. The economic history of this sort of activity is well documented, and the extent to which it distorts markets well established. It’s plainly an antitrust violation, and both society and the software market would be free-er and more prosperous if our laws were enforced here.