Imagine someone selling you a house and despite that you think you own the house the seller defines what things you can or cannot have in your own house, and even the ones he let you have, you must buy through them (so they can get a tax and force control) and if suddenly they are not ok with that anymore, it can simply vanish from your home.
"Hey look, you cant have that knife that its not from Apple Houses, it will hurt your kids.. we are always thinking on your safety"
Then you buy a car that you think its the one you like, but its not on you Apple Home store, so you are not allowed to drive that car.
But hey Apple homes have said its for your own safety, because that car was evaluated and could kill your wife.
In this case its clear "Apple Homes" succeeded in through marketing in psycological tatics to influence the house owner to do be ok with those things and still think he actually owns the house while the property is in reality leased where they define what you can access to or what can simply vanish even if you bought them.
I just cant understand how people can try to defend this sort of behaviour even when its clear it goes against their self interests and can damage them in several ways.. as the parent have said, just some sort of "stockholm syndrome" can explain this.