You are probably going to get downvoted, but this is a legitimate issue, at least in some regions. Widespread use of solar has changed the dyamic. If we look at demand net of solar supply, the demand curve has changed in the following ways.

1) The lowest demand is lower. This has pushed baselod generation off grid

2) The rise in demand when the sun goes down is very steep. This creates challenges for the utility. They need to have a lot of generation (or batteries) available that can spool up fairly quickly.

As far as economics go, this means that the rapid spool up generators have to charge pretty high rates. They can't charge the low rates that baseload supply charges. Because many of the costs associated with generation do not depend on how much electricity you sell. There is infrastructure cost that is amortized over time, personnel cost, etc.

All of this has been anticipated for decades. So there was plenty of time to do something about it. But a lot of utilities spent all their effort trying to fight against it instead of figuring out how to make it work.

Arguing that restricting the choice of software that can run on your platform is just another layer of defence in depth is a pretty long reach when your platform is a general purpose consumer device. I mean, you could lock your phone away, air gapped and inside a Faraday cage, and it'd also have extra layers of security. It wouldn't be very useful as a phone, though.

Here's a lesson from someone who has actually done serious security work for a very long time: there is no such thing as perfect security. Practical security is always about compromise, trying to balance the need for a system to be useful with the need to protect that system according to your threat model. If Apple are so worried about all the layers that sit within and below the OS that they don't think they can achieve a reasonable standard of security without also controlling the choice of available apps then yes, that absolutely is an open admission that they don't have confidence in the security their OS and platform.

Sorry, I'll include the /s next time. The point of my GP comment was exactly that you can't install a real privacy-friendly browser on iOS because Apple won't let you.

Battery companies hate this guy.

Make your batteries safer with this one weird trick.

There is a certain irony to your argument when privacy-friendly browsers are increasingly fighting those very dangers but Apple customers can't run them on iOS because Apple won't let them.

In any case, as has been noted in other comments, if the security model works properly and potentially harmful capabilities of apps are restricted unless the user says otherwise, why is there a problem with allowing apps from non-Apple stores?

The solution to that problem is easy and well known. Just install any of the privacy-friendly browsers and any of the good blocker add-ons. So what's the real problem here?

It also amazes me that no-one calls them out every time they try that one, because it's an open admission that they don't have confidence in the security of their OS and platform. It shouldn't matter where your apps come from or how hostile they try to be if they're properly jailed and your permissions system works.

Ah, yes, the millions of developers in the world are all evil and trying to eat your babies. No-one just wants to share fun or useful programs any more. Those open sores people especially are known for their greed and a culture of exploiting others for selfish personal gain. And there are no software companies in the world that are trying to make money in any way other than abusing their own customers, which is why no-one will benefit from any hypothetical competition in the market and any potential reduction in costs of delivering software to users.

There is certainly some Schadenfreude here, but I suspect it would be more fun for millions of Apple customers in the EU if it opened up its walled garden as the law requires so all those users could benefit.

My point is that it doesn't have to upset their customers. It can also upset the EU authorities, who are demonstrably willing and able to hand out 10-figure fines. That will definitely affect its bottom line.

For reasons I cannot fathom, Apple seems determined to pick that fight. It's a policy living somewhere between stunning hubris and utter madness.

When is it time to start shorting Apple? Its leadership seem absolutely determined to pick a fight with the entire EU over a predatory business model that the EU leadership clearly has no intention of allowing to continue. There seems little chance Apple wins that fight and even if it gets close it will surely cost astronomical amounts of money one way or another.