It's just being realistic. Obviously, it would be great if there were laws guaranteeing the users' right to have full control over devices they've purchased, but I think most people have accepted that this ship has sailed. So we can only really hang on to the little control we still have, which is usually achieved without the manufacturer's permission.
BTW: Stallman is brought up too which is actually very relevant for why this is such a losing argument: jailbreaks are cool and all but today they are basically irrelevant for the average user. This is just like Stallman fighting for GPL is nice but only really for people who compile their software themselves. People like the ability to have control over their software but going about it from the perspective of a software engineer who can write code or hack things is very exclusionary.
I, for one, would appreciate a device that isn't riddled with memory bugs that are exploitable principally by nation states; one might say buggy code is the backdoor free software folk are so paranoid about
It'll be the end of jailbreaking, and another step towards the dystopian digital totalitarianism Stallman warned us about.
[To those who think there will still be alternatives: do you not think they'll also follow, under the threat of being called "insecure" and "unsafe"?]