So you're not concerned with paternalism itself, you just don't like Apple, right?

I think he doesn't like the fact that a corporation is controlling people for its own profit first and their customers' welfare a distant second. Apple is not a charity or a government, it's a business. The EU is a government, its purpose is to regulate and legislate for the sake of the people it represents. It's more sane to trust the motivations of the EU, even if its actions are ill-considered at times, than a corporation whose primary, overriding objective is to make its owners wealthier. The former will generally pursue actions that benefit consumers, the latter will only coincidentally do this, if it stands to make a lot of money in the process.

Whats the difference in between a corporation that dominates the life and choices of one half of the population and a feudal lord that does the same.

The 'paternalistic Eu' is at least comprised of officials appointed through democratically elected parliamentarians.

What kind of democratic powre does the public have in the decisions that Apple takes?

What has the result of 'free market' mechanics been, other than increasingly dominate people's lives to maximize profit all the way to reducing their phone's performance just at the right time when a new version is going out to force them to upgrade?

EU isn't a government. "Europeans" do not elect members of the European parliament. Finally, I would argue that the reasons for forming what became the EU, back in late 40s and 50s last century, were completely different from what we have today.

Europeans do elect members of the European parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parl...

Indeed. My bad.