Some big companies like Facebook, Microsoft, Spotify and Epic Games are angry with Apple because they want to make their own app store in Europe. They think it's not fair and will be too expensive for them. Apple wants to charge them a lot of money every year if they use their new app store. The other companies believe that this is not what the European law meant, so they are saying no to Apple's idea. Read from source...

- The author uses sensationalist language to describe Apple's proposal, such as "backlash", "unite against" and "wrong direction". This creates a negative tone and implies that Apple is acting unfairly or maliciously. However, the proposal is part of complying with EU regulations and may have valid reasons for its design.
- The author does not provide any evidence or data to support the claims made by Zuckerberg, Ek, Bond and Sweeney. For example, how would an alternative app store be "onerous" or "so at odds with the intent of what the EU regulation was"? How would Apple's proposal harm developers or consumers? What are the benefits of having multiple app stores? The author should provide some facts and figures to back up these arguments.
- The author seems to favor the perspective of the critics over that of Apple. This may indicate a bias or an agenda against Apple, which could affect the credibility of the article. A more balanced approach would be to present both sides of the argument and weigh their pros and cons. For example, how does Apple defend its proposal? What are the benefits of having a single app store? How would multiple app stores affect innovation, security, privacy, user experience, etc.?
- The author uses emotional language to appeal to the reader's feelings, such as "shades", "farce" and "new low". This may create an emotional reaction in the reader, but it does not address the actual issues or challenges of having multiple app stores. A more rational approach would be to use logical arguments and evidence to persuade the reader.