If Apple suddenly changed Macs, sure. But, iOS has always been this way. Anyone who bought an iOS device over the last decade+ knows exactly the limitations and how it works. Android exists for those who want more open, yet the market has shown ~50% don't care about Android level openness.
I think it's wrong to legislate something just because it doesn't work how I want it to work, especially when an alternative does exist and consumers have spoken with their money.
Of course, this would be different if Android and iOS operated the same, or one had an overwhelming majority of the market. Because then consumers wouldn't have a choice.
What absolute nonsense is this? That is literally the entire point of legislation, to change things that aren't working how we want them to, for example to be more beneficial to society. Apple stealing money from a huge market isn't helping anyone so we fix it. Simple as.
Where do you get this idea? What is the limit on this principle? The DMA that you keep referring to is an European legal framework. Is it your opinion that everyone must bow down to what European legislators and regulators deem "beneficial"?
An argument that derives entirely from the idea that "the government has decided it is beneficial" is unpersuasive, IMHO.