great insight, Mark, thanks for that!
When I was at Microsoft, people would ask why it was that when Apple took a harsh and controlling stance the industry and public accepted it in a way that they never would from Microsoft. They wondered whether this had to do with Microsoft not being in the valley. But, of course, that would only explain the industry reaction and not the public reaction. My answer was that it had to do with the stated goals of the companies. Microsoft's goals were about a PC on every desktop running Microsoft software. It was a goal about reach and about reach for Microsoft. Apple's goals were about building the best computer.(*) Microsoft's actions would therefore be interpreted as being about extending Microsoft's reach. Apple's actions would be interpreted as being about their pursuit of the best computer. The former is about the company. The latter is about the product. The former directly benefits no one other than Microsoft. The latter most directly benefits the customer. And, so similar actions, viewed through those very different lenses get viewed in very different ways.
(*) One may disagree about whether their choices led to better computers. If one values customization, they clearly did not. But that disagreement doesn't undermine the notion that they were making decisions on the basis of what they felt would make for better computers.