It doesn't seem worse to me. Apple is free to make and sell accessories for its own hardware products. It would be a problem if Apple sold its smart watch while also breaking iPhone's compatibility with third party smart watches.
Whether it is or not, it’s fundamentally useful to use accurate language or people will dismiss your underlying point because of the dishonest premise.
I don't own any Apple products personally but I would say that the difference is that an Apple Watch is specifically sold as an accessory to your iPhone. You wouldn't, for example, buy an X-Box controller and expect it to work with a Playstation.
On the other hand, the Oculus is not an accessory to Facebook it is a platform for playing games.
People had no problem with tying their Oculus to an account, to manage their purchases, etc.., but people do have a problem with being forced to have it tied to a social media account.
I would say the difference here is that when we create a social media account we know, to a degree, that we are making a Faustian pact to have our data harvested in exchange for free services. But the Oculus is actually purchased with real money so we don't expect to have our privacy violated so the company can make even more money off us by harvesting our personal data.
There are legitimate and practical reasons for tying an Apple Watch (hardware) to an iPhone (hardware).
You can also use both without an Apple account.
As an analogy, this is like Geico insurance requiring you to sign up for a United MileagePlus account because Berkshire Hathway owns both (hypothetically).
Critically, as an Apple Watch owner, if I want to buy a different phone I will lose access to my watch. Which is the situation I’m actually in right now. I hope it’s clear why this is anticompetitive.
The watch has been a disappointment anyway, so once this phone craps out they are both gone.
