The last Windows laptop I bought bricked itself in a week, the Amazon stick needed constant reboots, I don't care about side-loading apps/widgets/software on my devices - I want them to be like my refrigerator and just work. AppleTV devices are much better than others. Once you're in the Apple walled garden things are much easier on me as an end user. There are seamless transitions from device to device if I want, sharing between them is a breeze. Sure other platforms are "open" or might have more advanced features, but I don't want to waste my time doing tech support having the BeenThereDoneThat™ patch.
They simply understand most of your data isn't worth anything, it's a liability rather than an asset. They know it'd be a waste of energy and customer relations to peek into most of it, so they don't bother. They collect what they can readily use (such as your purchase history - they're pretty open about it), and don't care about the rest (spying on your conversations or photos in hope to build a marketing profile is still a cyberpunk fantasy).
And because they don't do this, there's no reason not to capitalize it by advertising themselves as some privacy guardians. Not doing so would be a waste.
Google and Facebook are failing, because they bought this "big data big brother big money" meme which they rode cheerfully while the hype was high, and now it's time for a realization. When contenders who say "we don't track you" perform no worse (or even better) than all those data hoards that were supposed to predict future, it's a sign that immense worth of personal data was overhyped.
(a) Meta will insist their apps are sideloaded to enable privacy violations. Right now, they cannot say goodbye to iOS users. They could say goodbye to the small percentage that refuse to sideload (or even just put a worse version in the store to those people with enough new features to push most people to sideload.).
(b) Chrome will be sideloadable. Which means web developers will be convinced "sideload Chrome" is a reasonable fix. Reinforcing spiral and soon Google owns the browser in a way that is the envy of 1990's Microsoft. Keep in mind they managed to turn MS's Edge from a third browser to a Chrome skin. That's bad (see Manifest v3, WEI, etc.).
The list goes on, we could talk about Epic and games and store exclusives.
To say nothing about having to debug malware on my family's devices.
They didn't give two shits about it until they realised that it was a major issue of their competitors, now it's become their core features/marketing. But don't think for one second that the protective wall won't spring a leak or two if it can make Apple a profit.
Apple's dominance also comes from them cornering every possible market they can, they want to do everything themselves and monopolise as much as possible, their recent step was designing their own processors, the debacle with them trying to make their own cellular modems etc. Maybe they'll go for displays next but Samsung et al are so far ahead on that game.
They are able to charge 30% of app revenue because they can. They are a for profit company.
Amazon Fire did not do that because nobody uses it. Now that it has some traction, lo and behold, they want their cut as well.
If anything, Roku is the direct competitor (low cost streaming stick) and they take 30% ad revenue. But Apple gets the blame. lol.
One started a platform with an upfront communicated commission rate that, at the time, was literally received with applause because before that the rates were significantly worse for developers and has never raised the rate in its entire history (instead lowered it for certain circumstances).
The other is a bait and switch, luring people onto the platform under one set of rules, only to pull the rug from under them years after the status quo was established and change the rules to impose a commission that didn’t apply to them until now.
One is hard to argue as an anti-trust violation and the other is pretty much a textbook example.