> it started out this way, from the beginning, and developers accepted it.
Developers did not accept it. Some did, but any amount does not constitute complete acceptance. From the very beginning, iOS had people developing alternatives to the App Store a-la Cydia. Apple's terms were always controversial.
Apple's constituent of app developers does not even remotely reflect the attitude (or assent) of the development community as a whole. It certainly doesn't represent a competitive or regulated market of software comparable to the web, the Mac, Android or Windows.
The legal agreement, and the fact developers signed it, even if begrudgingly, back when iOS did not have a monopoly in any way, is the only assent the law needs to consider.
Student loans certainly don't have much assent 5 years after graduation.
Not everyone has student loans. Non-signatory parties aren't beholden to other people's terms, and even then their agreement doesn't inherently prove the legality of a particular loan provider.
Apple's de-facto control of iPhone software can be illegally abusive without violating the terms of their developer agreements. If that wasn't true then I don't know why the FTC would be actively investigating them.
If any of this were remotely true, then I have a contract for you-- it involves a small loan for relocation, no big deal. You'll just have to work for me exclusively for the next 20 years, and if you can't pay it off, no problem, we'll assign the remainder to your kids.
Developers did not accept it. Some did, but any amount does not constitute complete acceptance. From the very beginning, iOS had people developing alternatives to the App Store a-la Cydia. Apple's terms were always controversial.
Apple's constituent of app developers does not even remotely reflect the attitude (or assent) of the development community as a whole. It certainly doesn't represent a competitive or regulated market of software comparable to the web, the Mac, Android or Windows.