Re: ugh. Its sooo obvious..
Apple built and owns its app store and has every right to set whatever conditions it wants on the apps being sold there
Yes, but ...
OK, this is a bit of a strained analogy, but suppose Ford implemented a system whereby when you bought a Ford car, it could only be serviced by Ford, would only accept petrol from a Ford garage, could only use tyres bought from Ford (even though still made by Michelin, Dunlop, etc) - and for good measure, had controls in place that would prevent you using it in certain ways. Basically you have bought the car but Ford effectively controls how you can use it*, what fuel you put in it, what tyres you put on it, etc, etc.
The same argument applies - if you don't like the policy, don't buy a Ford. But that only works if GM, Toyota, Seat, VW, and all the others haven't done exactly the same thing. In the mobile market there are two main options - Apple and Android (with Google applying similar controls, just more easily worked around).
* Example. There is an iOS app for doing WiFi surveys, only available if you jailbreak the device because Apple won't permit it in their store. So you have to jump through some pretty tricky hoops to do a basic network function. Similarly, the iPad I have doesn't support me using a bluetooth GPS - it's cpaable of it because there's a third party option to enable the support, again only possible on jailbroken devices. Yes, two specific function where Apple has specifically denied me the option of using MY device (yes, I paid money for it, so it's mine) for what I want to use it for - unless I jailbreak the device which they go to great lengths to try and prevent.
Oh yes, for good measure - doesn't anyone remember the cases (note the plural) where apps eventually got removed from Apple's App store for doing nefarious things. Apple checks that the App only uses official system calls and stuff like that, but it's unable to police an App "phoning home".
They also deliberately separate "customers" from "suppliers". For example, if a newspaper wants to sell a subscription to a reader, Apple's way doesn't allow that seller to know who the buyer is. OK, privacy by default - but it removes the option for a buyer-seller relationship. IIRC they went as far as changing the rules to insist on the seller using Apple's process - thus blocking direct sales AND allowing them to pocket 30% as a bonus.