The obvious difference is the scale. Sometimes difference in scale is difference in nature. All of what you listed are easily substituted, and not very impactf

The obvious difference is the scale. Sometimes difference in scale is difference in nature. All of what you listed are easily substituted, and not very impactful to somebody's life. The same games exist on Xbox and Playstation (95% overlap). McDonald's is a buy one time product, where you can easily choose on a given day to go to BK or Wendy's. You buy an iphone, you aren't going to just buy an Android the next day if Apple raises costs. Isn't it obvious how different these are? You can bet that if Microsoft charged any third party apps on windows 30% of their revenue they would have been regulated long ago. You really think otherwise? I don't understand the Apple defenders. Encouraging actual competition within the platform is the pro business stance. Competition is the basic element that makes capitalism work. You don't have competition if cost of switching is high, it's that simple. Platforms with sufficient impact on people's lives, and sufficiently high cost of switching will be regulated to require competition. It's as simple as that, though fanboys will kick and scream for the next few years until it passes into law. It's the obvious outcome, and china is already paving the way on legislation.