For one, it would return us to the status-quo where the user decides what to install on the hardware they own. That seems pretty important to me, even if you hate Europe or Apple.
My point was less related to the cause-and-effect, and more focused on the undeniable need for user control. Apple is the reason why the Digital Market Act exists - go read it, you'll very quickly realize that the language targets them. It also (rightfully) implicates Microsoft and Google, but it very explicitly paints Apple's relationship with the iPhone as a "Gatekeeper" situation. The reasoning should be obvious; OEMs don't deserve that level of control. Apple could implement all of their meaningful features competitively, as-is, without being the sole trusted distributor of iPhone apps.
Plus, even if you love Apple and hate Europe, features like this let you meaningfully resist European mandates. If Europe demands that SMS apps have a backdoor (fancy that), Apple users would have options that aren't provided by Apple. In a world where FAANG is bought and owned by the US government and gets regularly subpoenaed for data, that might be an affordance you value.
This makes no sense. If Europe makes rules about backdoors or outlawing E2E, they will apply to every app store and every app, not just Apple.
The EU isn’t doing any of this to support some principle of end-user freedom. It’s all just a consequence of lobbying and politics. They aren’t going to do anything that reduces their own control.
I think the reasoning was pretty concise although throwing shade, referring to it as unhinged is uncalled for. I think I see this a bit too much on HN but bears repeating: your favorite trillion dollar company does not need to be defended. It is unlikely you'd be calling it unhinged if similar sentiments were expressed about Google, Microsoft or Facebook.
Ah. One can dream.
(edit: I mean from PC to IOS and Android)