Don't you think there's a difference between having short certificate lifetimes (which would be clear when the certificate is issued), and randomly revoking perfectly good certificates without warning?
They are not literally the same, but the point of both measures is to encourage automation by server operators, and are strongly opposed by those who would prefer to keep managing certificates manually. My point is - Apple, like Mozilla, doesn't mind inconveniencing server operators if they see a security benefit for users.
(Also, the revocations would not be without warning - mechanisms like ARI can inform server operators prior to revocation so the certificate can be automatically replaced.)
It's also a part of why Let's Encrypt exists as a market force from the other side of this playing field. Now that they've proven heavy automation works and shown they can use it to drive costs down, Apple and Mozilla don't look so crazy asking for the old, expensive behemoths to move faster/smarter/better.
(Also, the revocations would not be without warning - mechanisms like ARI can inform server operators prior to revocation so the certificate can be automatically replaced.)