I have used Atomic Wallet for a very short period of time for some shitcoins that needed to be moved around and where I didn't even trust the shitcoin's native wallets. I was concerned that Atomic Wallet is closed-source, did some deep research if this software had some bad history or reputation. At that time, I couldn't find deeply alarming news, so I thought, OK, why not, no large amounts of value at stake and I didn't run that software on the same computer where my trusted wallet(s) where.
As an end user I would be pissed if I had no control over updates or downloading a dead version. Forced updates can be a dangerous thing if external or internal attackers of a wallet's backend gain malicious control. With forced updates you can screw every user of the wallet when the wallet's infrastructure gets compromised. Displaying a big red warning in the user's wallet would be nice if that is done in safe way that can't be exploited by malicious actors. My hopes are not high for Atomic users as the past audits seemed to indicate that software and security quality of Atomic isn't what it should be.
There's still too much speculation of what went wrong or how the attacks were possible. A dead version in the app stores wouldn't help if the seed or private keys got compromised. And you could potentially protect only users with a forced update before attackers could do their stealing.
The communication of the wallet's company is very much sub-par. If they don't know what's going on, then why they don't shut down the backend systems and tell the users to immediately move their funds to a new safe wallet that's not affected. (Well, if you have lots of shitcoins, then good luck with finding suitable safe other wallets to hold your shitcoins.)
Sounds like click-bait of this dude. So, for what reason this "Zach" doesn't reveal his knowings?