Except that you know this is a strawman, since you regularly argue that the competition is strong:
Apple is a $600 billion company. They are getting away with behaviors that no one else could actually get away with because they're so successful. Companies that large are exactly why the FTC and DOJ oversight exists.
It was true that moving to the competition was hard during the Windows era because there weren't good alternatives. That's a strawman because there actually are good alternatives now, and your comments indicate that you know this.
Oversight exists to prevent abuse of monopolies, not to regulate companies just because they are successful.
I actually said "but that is seldom as simple as it at first blush may seem". Have a bunch of apps and iBooks? Ready to completely abandon them? Accustomed to any of the countless apps and services that only exist on the iPad? Ready to do without them?
Apple's actions are acts of bravado, and they only come from a position of strength. They earned that position of strength, but you can't simply say "Oh don't like it -- this policy and tax that most buyers don't even know about -- then don't buy it". It is hardly so simple.
Severing business or consumer relationships with anyone but a totally incompetent supplier or commodity service involves a trade-off. Some benefits you are accustomed to may not be present, but others which are more desirable presumably exist. Understanding this is part of being responsible for how you spend your money and it applies universally.
Are you arguing that consumers should be protected from having to understand and exercise this responsibility by the government?
Have you ever seen a gaming console? Have you ever seen an eInk Kindle Reader which is tied to Amazons eBook store?
Also here is a fun fact from the past: Before the iPhone mobile App developers (yes, there was stuff like J2ME applications, but it was a tiny market compared to the App store economy of today) were glad if they earned 20% on the price of their products. The providers or download portals pocketed the fat end.
I shudder whenever someone so easily uses it as the comparison.
No one in the world has a problem with the App Store in general. Apple does a fantastic job running a storefront, lubricating a world wide payment and gift card system, etc. They run a tight, gorgeous system. The problem is when they push their reign of influence such that alternatives can't exist. When Amazon can't even link to a web store from their own app. That is just egregious overreaching that is indefensible.
But it's your device. When I buy a consumer product -- such as a $700 tablet -- why should the manufacturer (who happens to make enormous margins on it) get a cut of everything else I do on it? Why, if I bought a book in the Kindle app (which I can't do because of this problem), does Apple deserve a penny? I of course can't install alternatives outside of the App Store as Apple prevents it.
This is akin to GM demanding a 30% cut of all groceries that I buy and carry in it. Where else in the market is this sort of behavior tolerated? My television manufacturer demanding a 30% cut of the DVD that I bought. Etc.
A consumer could simply buy an alternative, but that is seldom as simple as it at first blush may seem. "Just use something other than Winodws" a million apologist would rant. That's why large companies get constant oversight.
This is where Apple's incredible success is going to, well, haunt them a bit. When they were the underdog, emerging from years of excellent products but little commercial success, they could get a way with this. As a $600 billion dollar colossus with completely unprecedented profits, however, the behaviors get more attention.