Appeal to tradition isn’t a beneficial argument, which is why it’s considered a fallacy.

It crumbles under the most benign forms of scrutiny.

The comment below already pointed out that vendors charged for all kinds of stuff. Your reply seems to suggest that, for some reason, you’re ok with that, but not if the OS vendor does it.

There’s also the argument that investment in frameworks for iOS is significantly higher than, say, the investment Microsoft made into frameworks for Windows back in the day.

Then there’s the general criticism of an appeal to tradition that there were many traditions that we currently aren’t ok with, and an appeal to tradition suggests that they are inherently good just by virtue of once having been a tradition.

I remember a tradition not too long ago where console manufacturers would charge thousands just for access to the platform and the IP (sometimes rolled into the price of a dev kit), plus thousands more for each build that needed certification plus a commission on sales.

It was so cumbersome for some developers that they did not bother updating their game[0].

Even later on, with lower fees, there’s still a lot of cost to get games published[1].

Now, you might say that consoles are nothing like iPhones, and I will respond by saying that iPhones are nothing like Macs.
And on and on we might go.

What matters is what is legal. Apple is in the clear to charge for usage of their IP, even when they use differential pricing and even when other companies are willing to give away their work for free because they see other avenues of revenue by doing so.

Further down, you state:

> I believe the EU wishes to roll that back and will probably not allow Apple's announced fees and restrictions.

Can I ask what fuels that belief? Or perhaps more importantly, what fuels the belief that they are at all in the position to do something about it?

I see a lot of “Wait till your dad comes home” style comments every time Apple is brought up as if there’s some collective amnesia that “dad” also has to stick to the law and doesn’t have the final say in this universe.

The European Parliament and Council of the European Union are the legislative bodies of the EU, and as such, they can create laws.
But like any legislative body, they are limited and need to move within the bounds of the laws.

The European Commission, on the other hand, functions as the executive body of the EU and is to enforce the law. They, too, are limited by the bounds of the law.

Neither the DMA nor its enforcement have been tested in court yet. All of that will start once the EC tries to enforce something, and the EC has, at best, a mixed track record before the court.

Apple made a smart move today because, contrary to what many here think, they went above and beyond the DMA requirements (e.g., it has no price regulation, so all the discounts in fees are freebies), and as such, took the wind out of the EC’s legal argument sails for many of the potential arguments.

The biggest hurdle that one needs to overcome is IP and property rights. Something neither the EU nor the US wants to tackle because it would have significant effects across all commerce.
The idea that you can just take a company’s IP and essentially make it public domain will never fly.

At best, in sporadic instances, can you get a court to agree that a company should be forced to charge “reasonable” fees, but with Apple’s fee structure for the EU being less than that of the rest of the markets and and option to evade all but one fee, it’s nearly impossible to convince a court that the CTF is somehow out of line.

Ironically, as I write this, I just realized that an upfront fee for IP usage that is entirely decoupled from revenue is actually very traditional when it comes to fees like this.

The general timeline from investigating violations to ECJ is about ten years, so this will take a while.

0: https://www.destructoid.com/fez-patch-wont-be-fixed-because-...

1: https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-game...