>So why do developers get the choice but not the consumer?

because you can't just push a button and port Fortnite to Linux. Or maybe you can, but expect a lot of bugs that will ultiamtely be negative PR for Fortnite instead of a boon for consumers. What benefit does this give consumers?

Besides, this metaphor doesn't work. You do not have to play, pay, nor install fortnite to do anything except play fortnite. With this ruling, you need IOS to do anything involving making an IOS app, even if you do not need the app store. I don't see the use in being charged for hardware and dev licenses and ALSO be charged per install because your free app chose not to be on the app store.

I think the context of iOS is safely implied here. To say you have the option of going Android is as relevant as giving the option of doing a mobile app; Sure it is an option but out of the context of the discussion.

The choice is in the technology you use when you build an application for a user. You don't get a choice what platform you build your apps for, you already have your customers, and they already have their phones. If you're a business for which the technology provided by Apple is not a key part of the product, then you're being forced to pay for technology you're trying your hardest not to use but are obligated to by policy.

If I build a Flutter app for checking bus times, what am I paying Apple for? I'm already deliberately avoiding their badly documented frameworks. Apple don't own the buses, they don't own the internet, they should not be claiming ownership of the users phones.

And web apps. Even as an iOS dev myself, I can see there's a lot of apps out there that should've been websites.

You have no choice if you want to serve IOS users, even if you do not need the app store to sell your product. The #1 questino for any IOS/Android exclusive app is "are you making an Andoid/IOS version"? And saying no because Google/Apple won't let you isn't a resolution that satisfies any party.