Arguing these fine points is a waste of time because I feel like people defending this are missing the complete insanity of this situation. Try a different perspective:
Let's say Apple wants to sell their devices at "Billy's Electronics", which is a tiny kiosk at a mall with minimal foot traffic. Billy tells Apple that he'll only sell Apple devices at his kiosk if Apple agrees to give him 30% of all revenues Apple makes from all of their services from customers that buy a device at his kiosk. This includes things like iCloud subscriptions, app store sales, etc.
That's batshit right? Like literal insanity if Apple would accept that deal. So obviously, Apple would tell Billy to fuck off and will find somewhere else to sell their devices.
Except they can't, because Billy is the only person with a license to sell electronics in the entire country. He got this by convincing everyone that he wants to "protect" electronics customers from scammers and other bad people who want to exploit them. The fact that this makes Billy a trillionaire is just a nice little coincidence.
"Sure, I'm the richest entity in the entire history of the universe, but that's not why I'm doing this. I'm doing this so innocent people don't download an app only to discover that they need to go to another website to create an account first." ~ Billy
> If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%
That's a deflection tactic, and doesn't justify anything. 15% is still too much as long as there are no alternatives.