I actually love this answer, but I will point out that any arguments relating to "deserving" - especially in relation to companies' profits - becomes a very different discussion. We live in a capitalist system and "deserves" = "can achieve within the law". I offer no assessment as to whether this is a good system or not, but its the one we have.

It's absolutely reasonable for a government to impose its own market rules - but even there, the government follows its own logic for what to impose. Either to benefit consumers, protect local industries or industry segments (e.g. smaller companies), or increase tax revenue. What's the logic behind such a restriction? Unless applied to all app stores, this would be unfair to Apple.

For both customers and app-developers, we make an assessment of value and decide which phone to buy or which phone to target with apps. For app developers this involves a contractual obligation they freely sign on to. Making an assessment of value that is based on not meeting the obligations you agreed to is an act of bad faith. You don't "deserve" to play on my turf if you're not following my rules. Go play in someone else's yard. I can see how it makes sense for a government to assess whether everyone's yards needs to be follow a basic set of rules. That currently exists in the sense that no contract or agreement can upend the laws of the land. Is new law required here? Perhaps, but then it won't be Apple specific. Depending on how its worded it may apply more broadly than to just app stores. In which case there's a whole raft of rent-seekers who may not want such laws.

Fundamentally, it boils down to this (in my view):

Are smartphone ecosystems private property upon which third parties are allowed to conduct commerce subject to the property owners rules?

OR

Are smartphone ecosystems a public commons upon which third parties are free to conduct commerce as they wish?

I completely agree that any new law should apply to not just Apple and iOS, but to all similar products. Of course what exactly "similar" should mean is likely a tricky question. Perhaps a rule like this would be sensible: If a device allows users to install third-party software, then it (also) has to allow for a reasonable way to install third-party software that doesn't involve the platform owner acting as a gatekeeper.