There are literally no costs for complying if you sell or give away a messenger app, unless you're leaving everything unencrypted or collect tons of unrelated private data, too.
If they sell private information gathered from that messenger app to undisclosed third parties, then there may be additional costs of compliance.
Maybe this developer is complaining because he's running a nefarious business model? In that case it might indeed be easiest for him to shut down his business in the EU.
The original comment is about the proportionality of the response, the choice the author is making and what the commenter thinks about it. When something is banned outright, there is no choice and no proportionality. So, no, it's not particularly responsive nor analogous.
Same as the ban on the cheese wasn't a ban on "cheese" it was a ban on "cheese made with this manner" the regulations being shown here aren't a ban on "collecting/using personal information" it's a ban on "collecting/using personal information this manner"
Again cost / benefit is always a valid choice to operate somewhere.
The conversation was about whether the response was proportionate to (what the commenter felt was) a small imposition. You can't just change the degree of imposition from a small one to a really severe one and then claim it's 'the same'. It's only the same if you possess the enviable mental quickness to find not-the-same things the same. You're right that I don't.
If you cancel an appointment because you stubbed your toe, many people will consider that response unreasonable. If you did it because a pterodactyl flew in and bit off your head, lightning thought process and all, fewer people would.
