I think this is another classic case of people getting mad over what they think the law should be vs. what the law actually is.
The DMA targeted different companies in different ways all under the rubric of combatting “gatekeeping.” They then went on to say how different companies were guilty of that crime in different ways. It would not surprise me at all if Apple has complied with what the EU singled Apple out for. It also wouldn’t surprise me if casual observers have conflated all the different flavors of gatekeeping that the DMA has directed at all companies.
I think the issue here is just the additional payment, not the notarization. That part is hopefully rejected as a non-solution to the issue.
Notarization could theoretically be used for "good", even though I strongly dispute its effectiveness. It only ensures that someone's card is on file to potentially aid in investigation after the damage has been done. In the case of malware, that card is likely to be stolen anyway.
The more likely option is that Apple will start abusing notarization as a way to take down apps it finds objectionable in some way, even though they do exactly what they say on the tin.
To be honest, it's not even like I care that much about the additional payment. Scummy but expected. It's more that the current prices, similar to Unity, seem to pretty much punish any innovative idea that takes off, to a point where Apple will not just make the product unproftiable but bankrupt the developer in the process. Most mobile apps are free so people underestimate how quickly you can hit 1M. At least make it something like $0.05 at a million and ramp it up at 5m or 10m to these larger prices. by 10m downloads you are much more likely a larger business or have figured out a way to properly scale your app.
oh and don't count updates, discouraging devs from maintaining their apps. Devs don't profit from an existing user updating, why should Apple?