Forcing people who have broken their new iPhone's screen to trade it in for a refurb because no third party repair shop can swap out a serialized display isn't user hostile?

You are saying that the "why" of Apple doing these things is purely "user hostility", which is highly implausible.

A company does not make decisions based on a pure "will to be evil".

They probably think that the reputation hit from not allowing repair is less damaging than the reputation hit from users dissatisfied with repairs. Other design choices can be for cost cutting in design or production.

So sure, it is not nice for the user, but the reason is not a desire to spite users. They likely simply think the additional costs, tangible and intangible, of being repair-friendly are not worth it.

I really do think you're ascribing emotion and malice to decisions where it doesn't make sense to do so.

> Shutting down iOS emulation projects seems spiteful.

No, it's because Apple "pays" for OS development by selling hardware. Emulation projects cut into that. It's not spiteful; it's a logical business decision, regardless of whether or not we like it.

> Adding code and microchips to enforce serial paring of batteries, screens and camera modules to the device it was originally installed in... is a cost cutting measure?

This absolutely can be the case. What is the engineering cost of supporting third party components?

What happens to apples image if a crucial calibration is not performed after swapping a component? They might lose that customer forever because “Face-ID doesn’t work”.

What is the cost if your PR image is damaged as a result of third party battery fires? “iPhones explode” would be the headline and third-party batteries would be the footnote.