In short, yes. You’re free to explain, at any length you choose, how and why say, the FTC or any other body should step in and dictate how MS should have designed the wireless connectivity for that product.
You can add a paragraph about how a company producing an integrated product is bound to respect other uses of that product, and adjust their engineering and cost decisions (and, to be fair, marketing decisions) to accommodate that bind.
Most if not all of what consumer product companies do is “anti-consumer” in many respects. However, I’m not buying the argument here. It’s their product, their market, their internal priorities - their choice. There simply isn’t enough money in selling adapters to make it a driving concern for the choice, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that it’s due to more substantial and relevant points. If one of those is that they wanted to create a more closed model for the XBone, excluding even 360 compatibilities - their choice.
Who are you to say what engineering reasons are “legitimate”? Does the console function? Do the controllers work with the console? (Barring minor issues, I believe the answer is ‘yes’ to both.) Did you get what was advertised and listed on the box? Yep. Do you have some entitlement to components you can easily repurpose, at that or any other price? Nope.
So Microsoft is in the charity business, getting its jollies building extremely complex and expensive toys for gamers out of the goodness of Bill and Melissa’s hearts?
Or is it that the console market should be a regulated one?
Or is it a free market of a *hugely *nonessential product in which they build, you buy and either one of you is free to say, “No, thanks”? In which they get to choose features, cost, marketing direction and pretty much everything else, and you get to leave yours on Best Buy’s shelf, gathering indignant dust?
I’m not quite sure what “pro-consumerism” is but I’ll guess you meant pro-consumer and assume you mean “anti-consumerism.” Not that it matters, as you have a very tenuous and self-serving grasp of all three. No workable definition of the concept can be boiled down to “I want it, so they have to provide it, and at whatever cost I deem appropriate.”
Far too many consumers, especially those making privileged niche purchases, seem to think that “consumerism” is the opposite to "getting what I want, the way I want it and when I want it (which is often ‘now’ or sooner). Here’s a signpost back to the right road: your inability to buy crap on your terms needs to be analyzed from the “buy crap” aspect, not the “on your terms” one. That’s what consumerism, and its anti-, refer to.