Because that's the point. The art is about telling people that they are being recorded. Just that apple won't brodcast there faces doesn't mean no one will see them. Or they are not being recorded
That wasn’t how I read the article. The artist seems fascinated by the way people look emotionless when interacting with computers, not with drawing attention to surveillance mechanisms. He wanted to create a moment of connection between the people in the store and commented mainly on how people ignored one another and kept looking at the computer. I really don’t know where people get the idea the artist’s intent was particularly focused on corporate surveillance.
Of course, death of the artist and all that - if people read it as a piece about surveillance capitalism then that’s what the art is about regardless of what the artist thinks it’s about.
When you enter an Apple store you are trusting Apple implicitly with your safety and security during your visit. That they might take security video as part of that is a reasonable component of that trust relationship. Being forced to participate as a model in an art exhibit by a random third party with no relationship to Apple violates that trust. It’s no wonder Apple would have a concern.
It’s not remotely comparable to security surveillance, and the artist doesn’t even seem particularly to be trying to draw that comparison, so I’m not sure why people are seeing this as about ‘always being on camera’.