Well... The problem is that companies say that you're not really "buying" anything. You're merely "licensing" it in some cases you acquire an indefinite license that can, however, be revoked at any time. If I buy a game on Steam, for example, you technically "subscribe" to it, according to their "subscriber agreement". If you but a John Deere Tractor, you only license the software on it and whenever they choose they can charge as much as they want to service it whenever they want because you legally can't do anything yourself because that would be reverse engineering.
Same with movies. Want to watch a 4k movie with a custom subtitle track in VLC player in a particular obscure language that your deaf grandma understands and that isn't part of the subtitles offered by your streaming provider? Well you legally can't because in order to do that you first need to remove the DRM.
Reverse engineering should be perfectly legal. If I buy a chair, I can take measurements if I want to add a pillow to it. Copyright law already prevents me from creating an exact copy of the chair and selling it.
But digital stuf seems to be exempt. Copyright lobbyists lie to us, making us believe that software is some kind of arcane thing that needs some special treatment. It is not. The only reason this happened is that politicians seem to not understand "digital stuff" and got lobbied into passing legislation that gives corporations the freedom to take away any consumer rights as soon as there's any kind of software involved.
This practice needs to stop.
There are tons of regulations in place for Books, for example. When you publish a book in the US, you need to provide examples to the Library of Congress. Not a "license", not a "subscription", but a copy of the real book that works forever.
With videos and software it should be the same. You want to sell movies online? You can do that, but you need to provide a DRM-free version to the government. As soon as any user has a proven problem receiving this version (e.g. technical incompatibilities). They will be provided that DRM-free version. Done. If companies don't want that to happen, they need to make sure that their stuff always works on any system the DRM-free version could also work on.
When Lobbyists whine about so-called "piracy", they forget that copyright law already protects against that. You don't need DRM for that. Even those DRM-free copies couldn't legally be distributed by the users that receive them, so I don't see the issue.
Holding an entire society hostage to this is a terrible development. Books, Music, Movies, Video Games....
In a few hundred years, Historians are going to look back and define this as the dark age of Art and Media because everything will be lost. Our cultural heritage will be so "protected" that nobody will be able to use it anymore.
Who will guarantee that a given DRM server will run on 10, 100, 1000 years?
For the sake of preservation and free access to information, art and media (free as in: without boundaries, not without payment), we need to stop this.
Anyway. I'm ranting off again on this.
The thing is that this isn't even a particular Apple problem. Apple is the most lenient media streaming provider. Compared to Netflix, Amazon etc. they allow users to download movies for a period of time in HD quality which is great for users that want to watch high quality video but can't stream it in real-time due to bandwidth constraints.
I'm not blaming Apple for this but the current political situation.
There just needs to be legislation that outlaws these toxic DRM practices. At least in at least one big market like California. It's as simple as that.
It's like tax evasion practices. You can't blame a particular company to use perfectly legal loopholes to stay competitive. If you want to sell movies online, you need to work with the movie studios that demand DRM. You can choose not to do that and go out of business or you comply.
I just can't wrap my mind around how it is legal to create a technical limitation to force users to buy a new computer after a year due to a corporate decision that is clearly not a technical reason because the computer is perfectly capable of playing back 4k and higher resolution video.
I need to buy a new computer because the lawyers want me to, not because it's technically necessary.
Lobbyists will say "you don't understand how the DRM works" and I'll respond "I do, and that's why it shouldn't be there in the first place".