It's not their house. Someone bought an iPhone (not leased, bought, they own it now). Someone else made an app that that person wants to install on their iPhone (solely thanks to app developer's own marketing efforts). But Apple thinks it's appropriate to have their finger in the pie too.

Nobody bought the Apple SDKs or OS though and every app depends on them.

I get people are use to free, but plenty of companies license software for royalties that does a lot less.

> Nobody bought the Apple SDKs

That's what the $99/year fee is for. Apple set that price themselves. It can also be argued that some of the cost of the SDKs is included into the price of the Mac that any iOS developer has to have.

> or OS

That's included into the price of every iPhone because you can't even buy an iPhone without an OS or install your own, like you can do with PCs.

Does apple having designed, developed, and manufactured the phone as well as having built, maintained, and serviced the App store mean nothing?

The App store is a highly trusted place to download things on your phone, and that's a value that apple provides and that costs money to maintain. Pretending that it's as isolated as you pretend feels very disingenuous.

I'm an Android developer myself, but the app store is commonly seen by my iOS colleagues just as a stupid hurdle they must clear to get their app out to the world. Not as the godsend that Apple portrays it.

If the app store is truly as immensely useful as Apple wants everyone to believe, why not enable full-on Android-style sideloading on iOS and let the app store compete with that on its own merits? Surely everyone would still prefer it if it's so great?

Now there are fewer (or none) apple followers defending the old argument: Apple is entitled to profit for their platform. Thank EU for Striking some sense on that.

If only it were that simple!! Isn't the central problem that you're not allowed to sell in anybody elses house. I mean, if you're prepared to accept that you are leasing the device and that the lease will dictate what you can add can't do with the device, then I think your position holds, otherwise, it's a little tenuous.

I interpreted the parent comment as referring to the EU's house and rules?

If it were really that simple, we'd all be leasing AT&T cell phones. The only reason Apple can sell iPhones and run an app store is because AT&T got broken up 40 years ago for similar issues.

Their house is in part in the EU so they have to play by the rules of the EU there, or remove that part of the house.

This argument is trotted out frequently and it misses the point. These are NOT Apple’s customers. Yes they bought the phone from Apple but they are Epic’s customers. No one wants Apple inserting themselves in the middle of the transaction. It is not necessary.