Counterfactuals are weak opinion, at best.

Given that Apple is doing well, the onus is on someone claiming that Apple would have done better, having a strong argument.

Not "could" have done better, because things could obviously have gone better, worse, or anything else, given any substantive or random difference. Could means nothing.

(And I say this as someone very disappointed with how Cook handled that.)

I’d rather hear from someone suggesting, counterfactually, that they would have done worse had they not capitulated. What’s that argument like?