You're taking reductionism too far. If what you're doing is illegal, and the court orders you to stop it and also stop lots of other things not found to be ill

You're taking reductionism too far. If what you're doing is illegal, and the court orders you to stop it and also stop lots of other things not found to be illegal, and also to refuse to allow a counterparty to work with you in even more unrelated fields, then it's fair for the counterparty to insist on having a say. In this case, the proposed remedy would prohibit Apple from using GCP. Or even buying a Chromebook. Merits of that remedy notwithstanding, I don't see how anyone could have a problem with Apple objecting.