Apple leverages user ignorance to create their demand-side app store monopoly. That's the entire point.

Right, because it couldn’t possibly be that most people don’t care about side loading apps?

My dude, my entire point is that most consumers don't care so it reinforces the monopoly.

So that kind of kills that whole “consumer harm” argument doesn’t it?

Sure... ignorance never harmed anyone... right?

If only the alternative operating system to the iPhone was owned by a company that had a popular website where they could educate consumers.....

Actually, I bought iPhones for my parents precisely because of the walled garden and consistent experience. Back when I made this change (3 years ago), the Android App Store was just a cess pool of privacy violating trash apps. Between that and the inconsistent ways to do everything across manufacturers, I just determined android flexibility is not worth hours of support for non-techies.

So yes, lots of people buy iPhones exactly because if Apples iron grip.

You're conflating different things under the header of "Apple's iron grip" here. It is beneficial to your parents that Apple prevents spyware better than Google does. It is not beneficial to your parents that they obsessively seek and destroy any way developers might get a single dollar from an iPhone user without giving Apple 30¢.

I’m sure my 75 year old parents don’t really care about in app purchases in Fortnite....

It doesn't matter whether your parents care. My point is that they are separate practices with different pros and cons, so using the benefits of one to justify the other doesn't make sense.

>they obsessively seek and destroy any way developers might get a single dollar from an iPhone user without giving Apple 30¢.

That's incredibly disingenuous and you're either being dishonest or ignorant. The 30% is for sales made on Apple's platform. Developers can absolutely make sales without giving Apple a cut as long as they don't use Apple's infrastructure or platform. You can have people purchase things for your app as long as you don't attempt to offer in-app purchases that circumvent the App Store.

Isn't Apple's objection to what Epic did here the fact that these purchases didn't use Apple's infrastructure and platform? Unless by "using Apple's platform," you mean "done by an iPhone user," in which case that's what I said in the first place.

How are developers supposed to not use apple's payment platform when they are explicitly prevented from circumventing it? Your last two sentences dont make sense when put together.

They're not. In-app purchases have to go through Apple. You're allowed to sell things outside of the App Store so long as you don't try to use that to circumvent purchases available within it. For example, you can watch videos in several streaming services that you purchased or entered digital codes for. You can't however make a new purchase within the app without hitting an Apple server. Apple logs those purchases and backs them up to your account and hosts the servers that the actual app sits on along with the content for those in-app purchases. That infrastructure allows customers to use one account to download it and nearly guarantee no malware while also giving a platform for people to give feedback on that app.