The point here is that the antitrust concerns are a natural consequences of them doing their job properly; with Apple becoming a bigger company - which is what is expected of them - it is quite natural that Apple will attract more scrutiny regarding their practices as a dominant player.
Their high level decisions and strategy created a desirable situation: Apple is bigger than ever. That situation has undesirable side effects, but overall the tradeoff is worth it.
It's what we call "rich people problem"; those are real problems - that need to be handled - but they are problems that "you wish to have" because it also means you solved a ton of other - more pressing - issues. And people don't usually look for "blame" in these situations.
There's an argument that Microsoft missed the whole mobile trend because of the antitrust trial and it's outcome, making them second guess potential moves.
IBM got rid of it's computer division as one of the many results of the antitrust case and it's now basically a consulting company with researchers as a side gig.
For any of these companies there was a path to keep making tremendous revenue without getting regulators on one's back, though it requires keeping producing competitive products.
As an example, LVMH is an ultra profitable group with a tentacular hold on its markets, but you don't see governments constantly suing them.
I'm not sure why you see getting struck down by whole governments to be some desirable "rich people problem".
Their high level decisions and strategy created a desirable situation: Apple is bigger than ever. That situation has undesirable side effects, but overall the tradeoff is worth it.
It's what we call "rich people problem"; those are real problems - that need to be handled - but they are problems that "you wish to have" because it also means you solved a ton of other - more pressing - issues. And people don't usually look for "blame" in these situations.