That's the point. You have a manufacturer that sells a product with N years of support and a customer who buys it and keeps operating it out of support for N+5 years, what is the manufacturer supposed to do about that? Support the product until the end of time? Remote brick the customer's property?

Apple (at least) has shown us for some time that the device you buy is not really 100% your property. All kinds of proscriptions are in the EULA that prevent you from doing whatever you want with a Mac, and it's far more extensive with iOS devices. So yes, the company is remote bricking their property. What the consumer paid was a one time rental payment, not a purchase.

It sounds a lot like you're proposing enshrining that sort of corporate serfdom in the law and prohibiting the situation where the customer actually owns their own property.

Nope. It was just an observation that I think most people are completely unaware of; or they accept it because the alternative of crappy phones from companies that do not care to keep them updated, or drop all kinds of trash all over them that cannot be removed, sucks so badly that a company can get away with what Apple does. You are voluntarily agreeing to that EULA. You don't in fact have to agree.