Would the world be a better place if Apple weren't allowed to Tivoize the iDevices because all the free software in them were licensed under GPLv3? I'd say yes.
Case in point: their SMB stack.
To me this shows that Apple would just not have used (and contributed to) any free software if it was all GPL3. The world would be a worse place. In fact, the world has gotten considerably worse, Apple-wise, when we lost Samba in OSX.
The patent clauses in GPL3 make that license completely unsuitable for any company (with cautious lawyers) that owns significant patents. I can really kind if understand Apple here.
The only significant change that FSF did was adding an additional point regarding patent agreements. They describe that: If you have an expressed permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement, such agreement is seen as identical as if you were holding the patent yourself.
If you are in a company that has significant amount of patents, and who would prefer keeping a patent rather than gaining benefit from free and open source software, then one need to keep an eye on any software one want to distribute that has apache, GPL or any other licenses with a patent clause in them.
If you are in a company that has significant amount of patent agreements, then one need to keep an eye on any software one want to distribute that got GPLv3 software in it. Apple do have a few such agreements.
What he has said is that he personally don't like DRM, but he thinks it outside the scope of the kernel and a software license (see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fa.linux.kernel/L5NR...)
So MBCook's statement is fairly accurate, to the best of my memory.
But I'm only here to clarify the very important point about who owns the hardware in question, not to call either license better.
The *BSDs prefer a non-GPL licensed alternative if they can get one.