There are reasonable levels of supply chain integration, and then there is user-hostility. With Apple we've seen both sides of the coin, so you'll have to excuse the people who accuse them out the gate.
It stands to reason that a company as large as Apple is capable of making decisions that impact large amounts of people. It's not just Right to Repair enthusiasts that care about that impact, it's extended to regulatory bodies that are tired of meaningless standards competition and arbitrary market separation. Apple can excuse these base truths with whatever feature or novelty they choose, but it doesn't overwrite the insidious functionality of their choices.
You're basically describing the situation in reverse, from the perspective of foreign markets and regulatory watchdogs:
"Another special, licensed connector for data and power? Why do consumers need that!"
"An App Store? Why give Apple complete control over a feature as basic as installing software?"
"Only one browser engine? How are new technologies intended to compete on a platform that doesn't acknowledge newcomers?"
So on and so forth.
