You are implying the two concepts are incompatible. There is no reason why they should be other than a manufacturer's planned obsolescence strategy, which is what the Right to Repair movement is all about and fighting to fix.
If Apple made a repairable iPhone with the same profit margins and specs, I'm guessing it would have to be more expensive. I would have to pay for this, even though I don't want to repair my stuff (I just buy new stuff when it breaks).
Who knows, the amount Apple has spent lobbying may have allowed them to create a more repairable iphone without increasing consumer prices.
Apple makes about 38% on hardware, right?
Suppose I pay $100 “extra” for an iPhone thanks to limited repairability.
Without that $100, Apple would have to find $38 somewhere else.
As I don’t value repairability, all the options seem worse.
Maybe it would make me $100 happier at the cost of $38 to Apple’s “bottom line”. But I don’t think they would like that investment strategy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/complete-control-apple-a...
At the same time, restricting how and what customers can repair is good for future phone/etc sales, which I imagine it's why they're doing it.