Maybe it makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. Regardless, those are the rules to be on the App Store. They are widely known and shouldn't have been a surprise or a source of frustration to anyone. If her entire business model was somehow built on Apple bending the rules for her and they failed to do so, that's on her. She should have anticipated these rules and worked within or around them as everyone else does.

If I ask you to take your shoes off before coming inside my house, and you tromp on in with your shoes still on and naively expect I'll just be cool with that, don't be surprised if I just kick you out of my house instead. And then don't expect anyone to care when you go protest in the public square about the injustice of me not letting you violate a rule I hold everyone (including myself) to.

(At any rate, didn't Apple actually reduce fees to 15% for smaller companies last year? Isn't that still in effect?)

Surprise? No. A source frustration? Absolutely – the rules are frustrating by definition, and this is the point here.

And even at 15%, Fanhouse would still need to either raise their prices, reduce creator payouts, or run at a loss. Plus, the rules shouldn’t be such that they disincentivize companies from growing.

Frustrating, indeed.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who strictly enforces a no-shoe house policy (I mean, have you seen the piss puddles men stand in at the urinal?).

The legal aspect seem to revolve entirely around their restrictions on other payment services, not the platform commission.