Can you please explain how you go from the hypothetical future of "Apple's 30% app store cut is found to be illegally anti-competitive" to "Walmart would be forced to allow random competitors to open stores physically inside them".

Parent does have a point here. His point is not that you can or should compare the two. We know they are different. But the LAW doesn't. How do you define in LEGAL terms how apple and WalMart are different? You can't use the word "ecosystem" like we throw around for apple because it is meaningless in legal terms. So first you need to either find an existing legal term and apply it or you need to make a new one. If you make a new one (because obviously Apples thing doesn't have a normal analogy) then you have to be VERRRRRY CAREFUL how you define it and what exact terms you use because whatever that is will be used and abused by precedence for decades to come.

I was asking a question. (1) That we define what we mean, so... (2) We can analyze the impact.

Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30% store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for maintaining their own store?

It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not thinking any deeper than this?

Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no, why. If yes, why?

And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again, where's the definition that contradicts this interpretation.

Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of substance being said.