Apple is under no legal obligation to license their material at FRAND rates, nor are they under any legal obligation to make you happy. So let's table that.
What does the App Store fee cover?
• Credit card transactions (~3%)
• Gift card transactions (10–30%)
• Absorbing the costs of credit card fraud
• Running the App Store, bandwidth etc
• Performing app review[1]
• A license fee for use of Apple libraries and APIs
• Having your App receiving the residual goodwill of being available in a store where customers know that Apple is constantly breathing down the neck of developers to do the right thing[2] and pushing the envelope of policies such as not allowing third party tracking by Facebook.
• Having your App for sale in a store where customers feel comfortable generally need to fear credit card fraud, malicious code, where scams are less common (and can generally be refunded), etc etc.
Let's imagine that Apple said "okay, you can have an open market" and replaces their App Store fees with a license fee of 15 percent of gross revenues, similar to how Epic charges developers for use of Unreal Engine. Now you can have an open market for apps. Let's see how alternatives compete for the costs of running and marketing their stores.
[1] Just because something is imperfect, doesn't mean it's useless.
First, you are talking about the rights of an end user to use an app. That's different. I'm talking about the rights of a developer to distribute an app built against these libraries and APIs. The FSF says that if you did this with GPL libraries and APIs, this would require your app to also be available under a GPL compatible license.
Furthermore, whether you paid for a thing is not relevant. What matters is whether the license conditions are satisfied. You can pay for a boxed copy of Red Hat Linux, but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibilities under the GPL.
And finally, licensed Apple intellectual property is absolutely contained within the binary of your iOS application.
