Wouldn't it prevent people writing GPL2 software from using it, as the anti-tivoization would not be GPL2 no additional restrictions clause friendly? See the GPL FAQ compatibility chart [1], bottom left. The case I'm thinking of is where if you fork somebody else's GPL2 project and don't expect to be able to ask them to relicense (e.g. code from a company that no longer exists).

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#gpl-compat-matrix

Seems so, missed that aspect.

The FSF's interpretation is valid for GPLv2 and LGPLv2 as well, since the line "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." is also in there (not everyone agrees with this interpreation, but that's beside the point). The anti-tivoization clauses are not considered to be the problem, generally, since app developers are not distributing tivoized hardware or tivoizing it with their software.

Also, the path for solving compliance problems for (L)GPLv3 is much more well defined, as opposed to the case of v2. That's a plus.

But that isn't new with the version change, is it? LGPL 2.1 also requires you to make your source code or object files available for iOS apps, and the restrictions clause is there as well.