If indie developers were to quality, anyone would qualify and security incidents would inevitably increase. That's what Apple is trying to prevent. Keep the attack surface small.
Apple's philosophy is similar to the justice philosophy of nations like Singapore. Freedom in exchange for security. Some people like the trade off and some don't. And if there is anything that we know for sure is that when it comes to tech, freedom is the last of people's priorities.
something something "those who give up freedom for security deserve neither" something something
The problem with the "freedom-for-security" tradeoff is that there is nothing to keep the security provider - a government or private corporation - from continuing to provide security once you've surrendered freedom. Apple was very good at combating scams and fraud on the App Store when the iPhone was new. The problem is, that's expensive, which is why Apple decided to charge 30% in the first place. Once competitors stopped trying to release mobile operating systems and users had been accustomed to "just download App Store stuff it's safe", Apple moved away from investing in App Store security. We can see this with how many outright scams wind up on the store today.
Singapore is a similar situation. The security a government is supposed to provide is protection against, say, organized criminals, but government and organized crime has the same structure, function, and incentives as one another. A government that takes away your freedom may be able to protect against organized crime, but that also lets them do exactly the same things organized crime might do. The only security this provides is security of Singapore's tax revenue and political control from appropriation by competing violence-users.
Same thing with Apple. They aren't securing you, they're securing themselves in power, with your security trickling down from their handcuffs.
My comment was from the point of view of the security provider. The security provider receives your freedom and gives you security. Of course, from the point of view of the freedom holder, there are no guarantees that the security provider will fulfill the promise in the sense that you expect (i.e. that they won't violate it themselves) but you can generally expect that they will at the very least reduce the number of individuals threatening your security from private individuals plus the state to just the state.
Your full and complete security can't never be guaranteed unless you hand over your full and complete freedom. Sure, today there are many scans in the App Store but today there are also way more mobile users than there were in the early days and phones have gone from digital toys to holders of digital personal life.
If you want to see what a world where you keep most of your freedom looks like, try using the Google App Store with an average phone (see: phone with no security updates since 2021) and see how many scams you get. Guaranteed way more than Apple. Like an order of magnitude more.
Let me give you another analogy. You are a villager in a corrupt country besieged by out of control armed gangs taking control of areas of the country. Areas such as yours. You got a corrupt country making your life hell and gangs making your life hell. Now you have a choice to move to another country where there is corruption but no gangs. That other country is Apple, Singapore and basically any South American country got its gangs under control. There are millions of people that literally want to get an Apple, get into Singapore and get into this kind of SA country. Sure, a world where higher powers don't abuse their power is nice but that world does not exist in our reality. You choose the lesser evil. That's what Apple is doing here.
No, they want more money. They are hesitant to give up a big cash cow.
It doesn't have to be an exclusive choice for Apple: more money and more security for Apple. Many HN folks (many of them using plenty of Apple products) probably won't like it but the reality is that we all vote with our wallet and with our time
We can also vote with our actual votes and outlaw behaviours we don't like.
It's an interesting situation.
We're all free not to buy Apple products if we don't like how they lock them down. There are several alternatives, Android being the most obvious. And yet, iPhones still sell well.
There are also minimum standards of behavior that we require of every participant in society, including regulations on the behavior of products.
The DMA's identification of "gatekeepers" makes a distinction between the requirements on products with smaller vs larger market shares. More successful products are now held to a higher standard, if you like.
This isn't unprecedented: progressive taxation, labor laws, etc -- there are many situations where this happens.
It's not like Apple has a monopoly on phones, but they're significant enough that the EU wants them to behave in a certain (different) way. Both the DMA and Apple's responses to it seem a bit clunky (so far). I expect it'll take some time for an equilibrium to emerge.
I think it's also notable that Apple now has (at least) three major different versions of its software/infrastructure: EU, China, and rest-of-world. I fear that's a trend that will only continue.