Let's pretend that we can clone the universe and run an A/B test. Universe A receives the new rule treatment and Universe B does not. In both universes, we inject happiness meters into every living person's head. These meters also inject clones of themselves into fetuses for the next 100 years. So, we can compute the average happiness levels of all people on earth over the next century. Is a net positive change in happiness levels the definition of "better for consumers"? Must we also consider changes in the distribution of happiness among individuals? Is happiness even the right metric to consider? When the word 'consumers' is used, does it imply that everyone's happiness should be considered?
So, back to some reality. It's certainly possible that an Apple-like walled-garden approach might, for some particular technology/situation/problem/whatever set-off a chain of economic events which has a positive net effect on overall human happiness. However, I have no idea if I'm making a meaningful argument to those using the "better for consumers" phrase as no one seems too interested in attaching a strong definition to the term.
W.r.t. anti-trust litigation, the phrase is oft thrown about. What has bothered me is that the "obvious" answer is provided by a static, short-term analysis of current economic conditions. In the short-term, it's better for consumers to regulate the price of electricity. After all, it costs "too much", you know. However, the disincentive to build new power generation facilities likely leads to an outcome very negative for consumers -- shortages, rationing, etc.
tl;dr; Stop using the phrase 'better for consumers' unless you bother to attach to it a testable definition.