Really?
When something slips through Apple’s review, it can at least be pulled, and user data is still somewhat insulated by iOS sandboxing, transparency labels, and Apple’s privacy policies.
In a third-party store world, Apple can’t remove the app, revoke its entitlements, or even warn users if it’s leaking data. The DMA explicitly limits their ability to block apps except for narrow “security integrity” reasons not for privacy violations, copyright infringement, shady moderation, or, say sharing minors’ data without their permission. These apps could right now, get added to a third party store in the EU and under the DMA model, they would be live and downloadable, and Apple would be legally forbidden from stepping in unless Apple could prove a direct technical security risk.
I don’t see how that’s “disingenuous” at all. People on MacRumos insist all the time there will be no negative consequences to third-party stores; just because you don’t like when a real-world example proves otherwise doesn't mean it's disingenuous. You can’t hand-wave it away.
I'm happy to admit Apple's controls can lead to negative outcomes, like ICEBlock. Why can't anyone who is in favor of the government forcing Apple open ever acknowledge there are negative consequences. It's always "FUD and lies" (despite the fact that Google recently confirmed a massive amount of malware comes from third-party stores and sideloading on Android), "disingenuous" because stuff gets by Apple, or some other reason the provable fact is "made up" or "isn't real" or "doesn't matter because xyz". It's exasperating.
Just say "I think the positives outweigh the negative outcomes for other, primarily less technical people, and the fact that an open system already exist doesn't matter, because Android is icky" (or whatever reason those supporting taking the choice of a closed ecosystem away from consumers use to justify taking away that choice).
en.wikipedia.org
