I think it's articles like this that disprove the "insane markup" comments. There is a differentiator that justifies the increased cost. Increase privacy is not more expensive, decreased privacy is just cheaper.

You usually don’t even need that. 99% of the time someone posting flame bait like that will be comparing unlike things - slower CPUs, worse displays, etc. Equivalent hardware tends to be very close because markets usually do work efficiently.

I'm comparing the lowest models that meet my needs. Why should I have to pretend there's not cheaper, less powerful handsets that can fulfill my needs just to make Apple look better?

(Granted, my strict needs could be met with one of TI's sub-$0.50 microcontrollers and a seven-segment display since they're "make phone calls" and "generate two-factor authentication codes")

Because it’s mislesding, just as it would be to say that a restaurant is overpriced because you wanted a takeout burrito.

If all you need is enough to run a TOTP app, you could get a dumb phone with a $10 token but you could also make an honest comparison with the $350 iPhone SE or $450 iPhone 6S rather than comparing the iPhone X/8 to devices which weren’t intended to compete with current generation flagship models.

Chinese brands aren't known from protecting your data. Usually the opposite.

Android handset makers just manufacture the handset. Google provides the OS, and the underlying services for the Android ecosystem.

Apple bears both the cost of handset manufacturing, and the entirety of costs for the smartphone's ecosystem. That cost is reflected in the price, making the markup less "insane."

The Chinese handset makers in question may provide their own software, but it's typically considered "bloatware" and no where near the quality of software that Google provides.