It's more like you providing land to raise sheep, but put your nephew's sheep in the best spots, pushing your customers' sheep where they can't eat so well. So your customer will rightfully complain that you're hurting their business.

High cost for web apps to support iPhone users who expect an app like experience. Android on the other hand makes this very easy in comparison.

Try asking your apps iphone users to go to the share button on safari to install the app.

This is the wrong analogy. If you want to use the feudalism analogy (which I always find appropriate for antitrust discussions), Apple is the Ducal landlord and also owns several farms that compete with their tenants.

Now, in medieval England, you would be right that the landlord has every right to do this. In the modern United States of America, antitrust laws are specifically written to avoid this arrangement. That there is another farm is irrelevant - we have laws to keep the power of landlords in check as a matter of governing philosophy.

For the last 50 years, a pro-consolidation school of thought has formed that specifically precludes enforcement of the laws, but the laws are still on the books that specifically aim to prevent an incestuous relationship between producers and distributors. In Apple's case, they have bundled the App Store and OS in a way that allows them to make the rules of the market and precludes a reasonable degree of competition in a major sector of the economy - it's an obvious target for competent law enforcement to take this type of action.

I don’t think we can look at EU and point at a single thing and say that’s why they have a smaller tech sector. Heck, here’s a random argument I can throw out of nowhere for it: they are far less migrant friendly.