The brand owners still get licensing fees whenever real brands are shown, in movies
I would be curious how you square your claim with Rogers v Grimaldi[0], or more directly, how you square it with the outcome of the very case we're commenting on.
Rogers v Grimaldi is a narrow ruling in a district court about a celebrity name. It does not apply broadly to all branding and it's generally not worth a court battle to find out, since the filing is going to benefit the plaintiff.
That being said, there are consequences outside of pure legal issues to deal with in media production, which makes things like Apple's "allowance with their own restrictions" work. It's not a legal issue, but they can attack your post production just as well as making it a legal issue about filming.
Yes, but you're not allowed to harm people or businesses by knowingly making false statements about the product in your criticism. I would guess that a negative fictional portrayal of the product would run afoul of that. Satire often uses branding that is fake but similar enough to the real thing that it's obvious what it's meant to portray.
So it seems there are definitely ads that attack competitors or make false statements about their products, and they don't all get banned/spark lawsuits over it.
We still allow real products to be used in satires, even though satires could have the same unconscious effects you reference. We still allow people to publicly criticize products. We still allow real public figures and events to be referenced in fictional media, even though the same psychological effects you reference could negatively impact people's perception of them as well.
I still don't see anything that's special about a trademark that means it needs extra protection in this area.