Well, firstly we've already beaten to death the difference between purpose-built gaming platforms and general computing platforms, so again, I have to wonder which of the three you're being here.
I feel this is an artificial distinction made so that people can bash Apple freely without having to deal with the inconvenient truth that walled ecosystems are a viable means of making money (and maybe the only viable means of doing so).
Take Steam for example. From an outsider looking in, there is really no business case to be made for a company to sell gaming handhelds that utilise someone else's OS (like say the ROG Ally). Given the stiff competition, profits can't be that fantastic, you are just helping to promote someone else's wares, and more importantly, they don't get a cut of games sold through the Steam App Store.
It's the same argument to be made with android smartphones. We see a massive race to the bottom, with every OEM undercutting one another because there's really so few ways you can differentiate your product offering from the competition. The only winner is Google, who makes money from app sales, and from getting their services on as many devices as possible where they can harvest users' data and sell them ads.
Same with Nintendo. They use propriety IP to get customers to buy the Switch (because you can only legitimately access their games via their hardware). These people will in turn go on to purchase more games via the Switch App Store, where Sony keeps 30%. This is why Nintendo can be so profitable despite the Switch not having the majority share of the gaming market (not at all unlike Apple's business model).
I can also argue that hardware-wise, there isn't any difference between an iPad and a Nintendo Switch, or even the PS5. The only distinction is that Sony and Nintendo limit what apps are available on their platform (is there a reason why we don't see a word processor app being made available on the Switch, or why it doesn't support keyboard and mouse input)? At the end of the day, they are all computers. They have screens, ram, a processor, a GPU, if they can run Doom Eternal, they can run MS Word or an email client.
So if anything, shouldn't Sony and Nintendo be receiving even greater pushback than Apple for choosing to lock down their hardware to an even greater extent than Apple? And consoles aren't cheap these days, so you can't exactly argue "Oh, the switch is sold at a loss, so Nintendo deserves to recoup their earnings via app sales but not Apple".
I don't recall ever claiming to be okay with Epic, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or any other corporation leveraging their platform to lock customers into their store and extract rents from developers.
Nobody here has expressly come out and said that they have an issue with it either. If anything, you all keep parroting the "iOS is a general computing platform while the Switch isn't" argument precisely to not have to deal with the parallels in the first place.
The implication is that everyone here has no issues with Sony and Nintendo taking 30% of developer earnings, while also being able to control what games are allowed to be sold (I don't believe there is zero curation in their app stores), but you all cry murder at Apple monetising their IP in the exact same manner. I am sure you all see the absurdity of forcing Nintendo to allow the Epic game store on the Switch where they can undercut Nintendo (because they don't have to fund the R&D costs of developing the Switch console), but to allow the same Epic game store on the iPhone and iPad is apparently one's god-given right apparently.
If you are in support of violating Apple's property rights and remain of the opinion that Apple should just give away their R&D for free and not be allowed to monetise their own intellectual property, then just come out and be honest (and consistent) about it, because that's what you are all advocating for here.
