135 format is, roughly, 24 x 36 mm = 864 sqmm.
The "full frame" of the APS format, APS-H, is 30.2 x 16.7 mm = 504 sqmm.
So the full frame (markedly rectangular) gives a surface which is 42% less than 135.
What people would normally use and experience is the classic format, APS-C. That's 25.1 x 16.7 mm = 419 sqmm. That gives a surface which is 51% less than 135.
Most people using P&S wouldn't print big in any case so the marketing choice for APS and P&S made sense. But P&S are just a segment of the market.
When enlarging a bit more seriously half the surface or twice the surface matters!
No wonder APS did not find any market beyond colour negative. B&W and slide film, which are used by advanced amateurs and pros, people who make enlargements, made no sense on APS. That, in turn, condemned the format as a "snapper" format and I think would have failed to supplant 135 (as it was probably hoped by the proponents) even without the advent of digital.