It's very hard to prove a negative. Especially when you're limiting "innovation" to one very specific definition of "multiple mobile OSes" and then saying two countries where innovation is happening (US and China) don't count and insisting on repeating a logical fallacy over and over again to the point where I'm beginning to wonder if you understand what a logical fallacy is and why using one repeatedly would lead you to fail a "Intro to Arguments" class.
My argument is the DMA limits innovation because (among other reasons):
1) Mandatory API-sharing requirements mean that once a gatekeeper invents something, rivals can free-ride on that investment, a risk
the Commission itself admits could "could have a direct negative impact on the innovation incentives" of gatekeepers (see paragraph 286 of that link). This changes the ROI of every new feature; now Apple has to consider whether a feature is worth it, and worth forking the codebase over. In many cases, it may determine "nope, that's not worth it" - and I'll never be able to point to a feature that doesn't exist and say "that would exist if the DMA didn't" unless Apple explicitly gives us that example (and at which point you and other DMA defenders would say "Apple is just saying that because they don't like the DMA.")
2) Heavy compliance costs and fines divert engineering time from innovation. Apple has to dedicate thousands of engineering hours on things that no one is asking for, like the ability to remove the Camera app from the phone and browser choice screens that just give Chrome a larger monopoly, rather than focus on new features and innovations, Meta
reported it assigned 11,000 staff and 600,000 engineering hours to DMA work, a bill estimated at €6 billion. That money would be much better spent on other tasks that actually innovate, not complying with draconian regulations that give IP away to competitors.
3) Because the "gatekeeper" label triggers sweeping, fixed obligations, fast-growing platforms now have an incentive to stall growth once they near the designation thresholds, chilling follow-on investment in late-stage scale-ups. In short, ironically, the EU has made it harder for a third OS to emerge because once it gets popular enough it has a bunch of compliance requirements, including giving its special sauce away to Apple and Google, and at that point, why not just use Apple or Google.
Any specific thoughts as to why I am wrong on those three points?