It's not a store, though. It's a phone. People generally don't shop at establishments they already paid for. Even if they did, it wouldn't be an apt analogy because other stores can't sell that same item anyways.
So with that in mind, it's more like paying for an apartment where you have to order your groceries and furniture over Apple's room service. When other businesses want dial-out functionality, Apple taxes them 27% of the transaction to enter the building. When you offer to walk outside and help accept the delivery, Apple locks the doors on you and tells you to buy a second apartment. Enough people have bought these apartments (and like them) that they want to change the bad door policy but keep the posh interior. Now Apple wants to play the victim despite claiming an ample 40% profit margin every time someone buys a room.
I don't think that's a good analogy because in this scenario only one store can even exist in the first place.
Would you be okay with Apple taking 30% from food ordering app companies when making orders through an Iphone? Because it's basically the exact same thing they're doing here.
So with that in mind, it's more like paying for an apartment where you have to order your groceries and furniture over Apple's room service. When other businesses want dial-out functionality, Apple taxes them 27% of the transaction to enter the building. When you offer to walk outside and help accept the delivery, Apple locks the doors on you and tells you to buy a second apartment. Enough people have bought these apartments (and like them) that they want to change the bad door policy but keep the posh interior. Now Apple wants to play the victim despite claiming an ample 40% profit margin every time someone buys a room.