Hardware-based attestation of the running software is an important security feature, especially in a world where data leaks and identity theft are rampant. Let's say I'm a healthcare provider, and I'm about to send sensitive medical data to a third party vendor. Wouldn't you prefer that this data only be able to be decrypted by a computer that can prove to the world it booted a clean OS image with all the latest security patches installed?
If the vendor wants to install some self-built OS that they trust on their computer and not update it for 5 years, that's their business, but I may not want to trust their computer to have access to my personal data.
Remote attestation gives more control to the owners of data to dictate how that data is processed on third-party machines (or even their own machines that may have been compromised). This is useful for more than just DRM.
I trust myself more than I trust anyone or anything else. It's as simple as that. I don't even slightly trust Microsoft, Google, or Apple.
Your logic is built on an invalid premise that these companies can, in fact, be trusted.
> Remote attestation gives more control to the owners of data to dictate how that data is processed on third-party machines (or even their own machines that may have been compromised).
This is exactly what I want to avoid. It's my device. It should only ever serve me, not anyone else, including its manufacturer and/or OS developer. It should not execute a single instruction that isn't in service of helping me achieve something.
Also, the concept of ownership can simply not be applied to something that does not obey the physical conservation law, i.e. can be copied perfectly and indefinitely.