"Choose to" tap into that market. No company "needs" to be in China.
Just like there are thousands of companies in Europe that do not do business in the United States, and thousands of companies in Brazil that do not do business in Russia.
If Chinese consumer market growth continues as it has been, it may the biggest market for Apple. Hard to be the largest luxury goods company in the world without the largest luxury goods market...
OP is right. This gives China influence. Supply chain influence is a minor thing, relative to "I'm your biggest customer" influence.
I guess that's why I like the "chooses to" framing because it highlights that leaders of companies can choose to not pursue markets or go with higher priced suppliers if they can make the argument as to how it might help them in the long term.
Edit: typo
A lot of investors and pension funds are starting to add more criteria to their investments than just a profit.
From the point of view of any particular company the choice you're talking about may well exist, especially where the company is founder-led. But that doesn't mean the outcome you're hoping for can be achieved on a purely voluntary basis.
It may work in exceptional cases though, Apple being one of them.
That said, I think there is a decent amount of determinism at play here. It's like the "why are all politicians such politicians?" problem. The companies with an interest in entering the Chinese market will, mostly, do it. It's predictable. Predictable isn't determinism, but it's en route.
For a more poetic take, I'll paraphrase leonard cohen on "do you believe in free will?":
I think free will exists, but I think it's over-rated. Mostly, we act because we are compelled to.
For example, Apple being able to lock up all the supply of higher end chips and smaller companies not being able to compete.
The US is the world's largest market, by a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_marke...