Sometimes you can't just bring in an analogy and hope to make a point with it alone. This is all about removing the right of the end-user to install the software of their choosing, which is part of a trend to take away any ownership rights people have for the things they have paid for, claiming that the owner is really just renting or licensing everything and has no say over what they can do with their own property.
I think Wookey made the only good argument for having this kind of restriction: you could deploy something out of your own physical control and still hope that no-one could subvert that device by installing some other software on it. But the crucial point is this: *you* as the owner would decide which software can be installed on your property, not the device manufacturer.
That a company with at least two decades of experience of seeing one security scare line up after another around their products is pushing for technical measures of control in the name of security either shows the generosity of the media in accepting such a supposed solution in the face of that company's track record, or it shows the generosity of that company itself in cultivating such favourable opinion.