J
Generally speaking there are a bunch of UX principles and best practices advocating for a minimalistic UI. This makes sense in terms of https://uxplanet.org/cognitive-psychology-in-ux-cd7afed87886 (viewing Attention as a finite resource), perception and memory, https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/fitts-law#:%7E:text=Fitts%27%20law%20states%20that%20the,size%2C%20the%20longer%20it%20takes. (advocating for larger target areas, hence less items in a fixed real estate), https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/hick-s-law-making-the-choice-easier-for-users#:%7E:text=Hick%27s%20Law%20(or%20the%20Hick%2DHyman%20Law)%20states%20that,can%20be%20vital%20for%20safety. (less choice leads to quicker decisions), a UX technique called https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/progressive-disclosure , which means that large amounts of information should be split into several steps, https://uxdesign.cc/jakob-nielsens-eighth-usability-heuristic-for-user-interface-design-62fbbe7aa734?gi=36bec78df153 , and many other guidelines.
Taken together, these principles mean that we often aim to reduce the number of items on display for our main personas (target user audiences), deferring more advanced options to more remote locations. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flexibility-efficiency-heuristic/ promotes the use of hidden shortcuts and other "power features" for more advanced users, without using up the real estate seen by all users.
All of these decisions require a fine balance which is ultimately at the discretion of the designer - because displaying all of these actions for you also means providing a more cluttered and difficult interface for all users, including yourself whenever you don't need these options (which is probably 99% of the time). Ideally the exact point of equilibrium will be based on user research, but even then it won't fit all of the users all of the time.
Specifically Apple is sometimes https://www.quora.com/With-Apple-being-so-rudely-paternalistic-against-its-customers-and-treating-them-like-little-children-why-are-adult-people-still-buying-their-products , and only supporting the lowest common denominator, or what they view as the main use case, making it difficult to do anything they treat as a non-standard way of doing things (AKA " http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/06/25/iphone.problems.response/index.html#:%7E:text=You%27re%20holding%20it%20wrong.,e%2Dmails%20from%20customers%20himself. "). Microsoft typically adopts a "wider" approach, supporting more use-cases with more ease, at the price of making the main ones less well-tailored to the persona, because that's the tradeoff you get between a generic and a bespoke UX.
I don't work at Apple, but I believe this is why they hide things in menus :).
*EDIT
As some commentators have pointed out, one of the most important UX principles is https://uxplanet.org/difference-between-findability-discoverability-in-less-than-2-minutes-baabfd06d988 , meaning that options need to be discoverable directly via the UI without involving additional means. In your case this principle is sacrificed in favor of others - here it is at odds with the Minimalism idea, because it requires more use of real estate. This is not uncommon, as many UX principles can contradict each other, and the gist of the whole domain is to manage these tradeoffs according to the relevant goals. Since we aren't aware of the business goals behind this decision I personally don't think we can state that this is necessarily "bad UX", and as others have also pointed out, some of Apple's business principles are to discourage the use of other vendors' devices with its OS - so this decision may have been made to serve that purpose.