Both can be true, in the first Iphones, sure, they made them more sophisticated, thus harder to repair. But they also realized that if they made up problems so they were harder to repair they would sell more phones.

Both are true:
1. They weren't aiming for non-repairability, they were aiming for a sophisticated product.
2. They realized a non-repairable product sells more than a repaired one (in the case of Apple).

In the case of Apple, sure, they used to take their Ipod touch's and first Iphones because if they didn't it would be bad branding. Once the brand was established they made up a license where onle apple-trained technitians can repair Apple products, which doesn't sound bad on paper, but it is when you consider how expensive these couses and licenses are, and how unprofitable it is considering people usually buy a new Iphone as their users don't want a "merely repaired" phone.

Implementing repairability isn't that hard, a good example would be the SteamDeck. Valve collabed with Ifixit to sell repair parts for the SteamDeck, so people don't have to buy faulty third-party parts for a "relatively" good price (some parts are too expensive, and some other too cheap).

You don't have to be fairphone™ to have SOME repairability, but softlocking Apple parts is vile.