Who is allowed to vertically integrate, and who isn't? Under what principle of free markets and user choice? Should users by forbidden from choosing true vertical integration as a design choice? Why?
Why does Steam charge 30% if we think Apple having no competitors is why they charge 30%? Since you can sell anything for PC users anywhere, why don't developers jump from Steam's ship when options like Gog are available?
Vertical integration related to the central communication system in society has been recognized as particularly problematic for quite some time.
The delta is how large and important the mobile phone market is, and the fact that it is a centralized duopoly.
It is perfectly fine to target legislation towards larger, more centralized, and more important markets.
You are also engaging in whataboutism.
Maybe there really are problems with the console market. But regardless of that, we should still take action on the much more important phone market.
Is there some meaningful console I'm missing besides Xbox and PlayStation?
There is Nintendo, as well as the PC (which is both an open platform and larger than the rest of the platforms combined.)
They choose not to.
There is no 'free market' in any environment that is 'vertically integrated' by a handful of organizations. The very reason why we abolished feudal aristocracy and even went to the extent of doing revolutions and setting up guillotines was to get rid of that kind of environments - which its owners were totally unwilling to let go.
Technological corporate feudalism is as bad as aristocratic feudalism of the yesteryear. They are both based on the concept of property ownership to start with, so they stem from the same concept of private tyrannies where a private tyrant can do whatever it want with what it 'owns' even if it dominates the lives of millions of people.
Is this actually true? I don't know how I would find the answer to this question without paying a team of lawyers to analyze the 40,000 word Digital Markets Act. However, my guess is that it's more nuanced.
Structurally, I think the developer program will be unchanged. iOS will still require code signing using a certificate issued by Apple. It will also continue to have sandboxing and restrictions that prevent apps from using private APIs. Apple will continue to require developers to accept an agreement and reserve the right to revoke access in the event of a violation.
As dictated by the DMA, legal agreements like the App Store guidelines will become more permissive and new public APIs will be introduced to support certain use cases that were previously reserved for Apple. But this does not mean Apple can't control their platform anymore.
The App Store Guidelines really have two separate groups of restrictions: platform security/privacy, verses use cases/content that Apple doesn't want to be commercially associated with.
My "perfect world" would be Apple retaining strong security/privacy/integrity related controls (on a non-discriminatory basis) at the platform level, potentially through something that looks like the existing Apple Developer Program, while allowing for third party distribution, marketing, and retail. Ideally Apple's own user facing apps would be meeting the same platform level controls as third-party apps.
Third party app stores will be a cesspool of malware and garbage, like they are on Android now.
I'd say the Google Play store is the one actually full of awful software a lot of which is actually malware. Part of this can be attributed to Google's loose requirements and the other perhaps Android's security model in general is too permissive. It's very easy to fuck up your Android phone in a way that you simply can't on iOS.
I'm not terribly concerned about it since I think a lot of it comes down to how iOS and Android are designed, but it's not not a concern.
It would be to allow you to install chrome or firefox on your iPhone.