More like the opposite.

If you had $1,000 invested in Apple around ten years ago (a reasonable amount in a retirement fund), you'd have made around another $8,500 by now.

While if you'd spent $1,000 on apps and subscriptions over 10 years, Apple would have taken $300.

So Apple would take $300 of your money from one hand and give you back $8500 with the other.

That's a difference almost 3x larger than the difference you suggested... but in the opposite direction!

"Apple" takes and gives nothing. "Apple" is a collective figment of imagination of its shareholders, which people typically picture as dastardly moneybags living in mansions, but often forget to also picture, like, themselves, in retirement.

So we should let every company charge 10000% what they currently do, because some of the shareholders might be relying on extra dividends for retirement. Hmmm.

Indeed, we absolutely should "let" them. We should let them charge whatever they wish, we should let them sink or swim, and we should apply our laws to them fairly and equally, including antitrust legislation.