Many years ago, after six months of failing to get somebody to use firefox and having to de-malware their machine regularly, I gave up and made every blue E shortcut I could find launch firefox.

They later thanked me for the IE upgrade and said how impressed they were at how much less malware their machine had on it.

Or: Providing somebody with what they need but selling it as if it's the thing they think they want can absolutely be deceptive and non-predatory, and the difference is important.

Consider also the way many technical decisions often have to be marketed to non-technical clients.

So to my mind, to care about the difference is sound thinking, not apologism, and I feel like you're emotionally matching 'argument that doesn't condemn a thing I want to see condemned' to 'apologism' rather than thinking it through; I'm guilty of that too on plenty of occasions.

Note that none of the above should be considered to be an opinion on whether Barclays were also predatory (I don't honestly know) or whether their behaviour was morally bankrupt (my answer to this would be longer than the existing comment, inconclusive, and unsatisfying both to right and to read :)