Sure. OP didn’t ever reject the developers’ arguments. He’s criticising their methods for activism. But, even if OP were attacking their arguments:
OP doesn’t reject the developers’ methods (remember, their arguments are never contested) because of who is speaking, but how. To the extent it could be mistaken for ad hominem, it would be in tone policing, but that’s not what you said and it is not true because OP was citing Apple’s language, as evidenced by the quotes.
Appeal to corporate omniscience is not a fallacy. (And OP doesn’t cite Google as evidence for their arguments, so no appeal to authority.)
Circular reasoning doesn’t apply, even to your example, because complaints not mattering doesn’t cause Google to expect them.
False dichotomy does not apply because OP never argued any dichotomy. The closest they came was hyperbolic language (“perfectly” and “completely and fully”). But that’s closer to modal scope than any dichotomy, possibly fallacy of necessity since it implies future limits.
Arguments rarely require citing the formal or informal fallacy invoked. Instead, just respond to the argument. This is a great case of AI corrupting a discussion through derailment and false confidence.