Apple has not forced everyone to accept DRM as their security in the FBI case since a user could use a secure password and not use TouchID. What Apple has done:

1) Discourage the use of strong security by using a numeric password as the default.
2) Give the user a false sense of security by relying on DRM as for security
3) Making the situation far worse by misleading the public during the Apple / FBI case rather than come clean on their security weaknesses

TouchID relies on DRM because it relies on Apple's proprietary software and software installation lock to match the fingerprints. If one changes the software then one may be able to defeat this. This is what the FBI did. Apart for the fact that getting someone's fingerprints is really not that difficult especially if one considers a government adversary. I mean in the FBI case the FBI had access to both the terrorist's fingerprints and the terrorist's corpse.

By the way Apple is not alone here. There is a lot of security theater being pushed on unsuspecting consumers. Furthermore when the security flaws are exposed companies resort in many cases to litigation rather than address the security problems they have created. This is a perfect example involving major vehicle manufacturers. http://blog.caranddriver.com/hackers-crack-key-fob-encryption-used-by-more-than-25-automakers/

Basically if the "security" is proprietary it simply cannot be trusted.

Edit: The bold point is critical to understanding the security of a crypto currency. If the security is proprietary or dependent upon proprietary software then it should not be trusted.