This explanation is circular. Microsoft had a legally determined monopoly, not a real actual market monopoly where no one else could participate in the market.
For instance, Apple made computers that were such sufficient substitutes for Windows computers that Microsoft chose to produce a version of one of the their core products for use on Apple computers.
30% on a $0.99 game where apple is eating the credit card costs along with hosting, making sure the store isn't overwhelmed with spam and malware and bringing millions of eager paying customers to your table hardly seems atrocious.
Microsoft was abusing retailers and system builders because those vendors didn't have an alternative option.
I agree the 30% is atrocious, but not likely illegal.