It's unclear what point you're attempting to make here.
You began by strongly implying that people should have known better for buying into a walled garden.
My point is that people had no reason to believe there was a "walled garden" (which seems like a misnomer), nor any reason to believe they would not "own" the bassinet they purchased.
I began by strongly implying that people should know how their money will be used in cases when they own the product they bought vs when they are paying for a service via subscription. If someone you paid has control over a thing and the legal cover to change it out from under you, it seems reasonable to be disappointed but completely unreasonable to be upset or not to expect something like this to happen.
They have every reason not to believe they own the bassinet, by the simple fact that a subscription is required to use it!
You began by strongly implying that people should have known better for buying into a walled garden.
My point is that people had no reason to believe there was a "walled garden" (which seems like a misnomer), nor any reason to believe they would not "own" the bassinet they purchased.