Not unabated. They are stuck trying to find new loopholes to not comply, which are then struck down. It's a cat and mouse game, and they think they can get away with it because they have the most expensive lawyers.
Again, enforcement is the challenge, not the laws themselves.
I have no idea as I don't follow apple much, but I am aware that they are constantly trying to find ways to avoid complying with EU law, and that it is often rapidly struck down.
What you're describing here is not a failure of the law, but Apple trying real hard to find creative ways not to comply with it. To me it only shows that they are desperate, and that EU law is in fact getting to them.
If they keep at it it'll eventually end up in court, the case will take a couple of years, and they'll be slammed with a fine and asked to get their shit together.
Does the law demand unsigned software?
The answer is no. It's not phrased like that. But it's all about ensuring free competition in digital markets. The sole purpose of Google's move here is to hinder competition in their own digital market, and to keep control over it.
So the law does not have a paragraph stating that "unsigned software must be allowed", but it has a bunch of other paragraphs that can be used to strike down on monopolistic behaviour.
Google are aware of the law, and will try to find a loophole by designing a system that they believe technically complies with it. Then someone will sue them, it will end up in the European court, and the European court will in all likelyhood tell Google to get fucked.
It seems american tech companies think they can get away with anything because that's how it works in the US. We are repeatedly seeing that this is not how it works in Europe: the Court of Justice tends to care deeply about the intention of the law, as well as the perceived consequences of their rulings. And they don't seem to care all that much about American capitalists.
But to answer your question very simply: No, it doesn't. But thankfully that doesn't matter at all.
What exactly do you mean?
Sure, nothing is perfect, but EU legislation has generally been quite good, from the GDPR to the DMA.
The challenges are more related to enforcement - rules on the book are worth nothing if we don't force companies to live by them. In this respect we've seen some pretty sloppy behaviour, but also some victories. It's not a one-sided story.
Another challenge is of course to keep passing good laws, and to avoid terrible ones. Chat control needs to be stopped. Stopping it is a matter of convincing national governments it's a bad idea, as well as members of the European Parliament - everyone should be writing their representatives NOW. But that's another issue entirely. :)
Google is clearly trying to find a loophole here. Their loophole clearly sucks.
In all likelihood it'll end up in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union. And in all likelihood Google will lose again.
The Court of Justice generally seems unimpressed by American lobbyists, so the strategy of finding a dumb loophole is probably doomed to fail.
The EU already forced sideloading to be officially supported on iPhones thanks to the Digital Markets Act, and that law applies to Google as well.
The US will likely apply pressure, just like they are trying to force their death machines to be legalized on European roads. Apple already tried to pressure the union and failed, but the political climate has changed a bit since then, and while EU bureaucrats can be fierce, European leadership tends to be weak as fuck.
But yeah, chances are that this change won't apply to the EU. :)
You can't make laws for every single possible future reality. We need courts that uphold laws even when billionaires try to dodge them using shady techniques. The problem is that big tech often gets away with murder because they can afford expensive lawyers. Especially in the US laws are essentially meaningless for the rich. This is not so much the case in Europe.
I have heard some positive signals from the European Court of Justice that they are taking the challenge from big tech seriously and that they are going the extra miles to understand these issues. If you're particularly interested, many judges talk about this in the Borderlines podcast series by Berkley law. But it gets really dry really fast haha.
I don't believe in signing authorities. It's not effective - Google can't even keep malware off the play store - and it's an authoritarian move. Hell, most apps in the play store spy on their users, profiling usage to sell to advertisers along with ID codes that makes it possible to combine data between apps and build detailed profiles of individuals. The problem is not apps that are not signed - the problem is the whole economy of apps that work as Google intend them to.
Also, it's a basic question of rights. It's my phone, I bought the hardware, I own it, I install whatever the fuck I want on it.