You're letting perfect be the enemey of the good. It's possible to do two things at once: say good job on repairability and also, bad job on software.
Perfect is the enemy of the good, but not for the same reason most posit. Why settle for good enough when we can push companies to do better? Why settle for "at least I can repair it" when it's both possible and sustainable to ship quality hardware and software?
Taking babysteps toward acceptability isn't really something I'm willing to budge on. Frogs are boiled incrementally, too.
Even the most devoted person can have trouble moving the needle without exquisite political sensibilities. There are plenty of people working in toward the goals you describe inside Microsoft already, but it’s insanely hard to get things like this to critical mass.
Very often in real life we have only bad choices.
I am not personally in the market for these devices right now, but my work device is required to on Windows, and I am in a small enough org that my input would be sought if I needed a new device. I would very happily ask for a more repairable machine compared to a less repairable one, and having additional repairable options is a good thing.
And if someone came to me asking for advice on what to get, but was unwilling to switch to linux, I'm glad that I have some new repairable options to provide them.
Yes, the telemetry in windows is bad, but this is still a strictly superior situation that what we had previously, and it doesn't make the telemetry thing worse. I just don't get how bringing up other things that haven't improved (and may never improve!) invalidates the fact that this is better.
Repairability seems to very slowly be becoming more common in consumer devices. Hopefully, it becomes standard enough that it's not something we have to be interested in, and focus can shift to things like software. But for now, both suck, and both need to get better, and I'm going to be happy any time either one of them improves.