Sure, but the alternative is much worse so i'm perfectly fine with that.

Some people also drive cars without seat belts or motorbikes without helmets in name of freedom.

I rather have the inconvenience of using them, even if they don't prevent accidents.

These two have nothing common, i'm not sure why you bring that up.

Sure they have, security improvements always come with a small inconvenience cost, although they provide a better outcome in the larger picture.

Having to use a seatbelt or helmet doesn't prevent you from going to any place you want to go.

Not being able to install any software you want on a device you own is not a small inconvenience cost, it is a great artificial limitation meant to take control away from the user and put the user at the mercy of the vendor who can then use it for other user hostile actions (e.g. forced obsolescence, a common tactic in the example of gaming consoles brought before).

And especially in this case, any "better" outcome is really small and short term (the user being unable to do much with their own device means they are also unable to install unwanted software) whereas the larger picture outcome is user hostile - a gradual loss of control and ownership to the goods you are paying for.

Thank malware authors and virus writers.

I rather have a store than a background application taking machine resources, to ensure that applications are safe to use and do not expose my computer contents to the world when connected.

I'd thank malware authors and virus writers only if i was a platform vendor trying to find a scapegoat for why i "have" to take away control from users.

Thankfully i'm not one. But that doesn't make me blind on such schemes.

Also that background application you mention, even though it isn't necessarily needed in all cases, it is still a better solution than a locked down system since it is under the user's control.

There needs to be a PSA about misuse of analogies, especially as some kind of proof or reasoning for an argument.

Those who would trade freedom for security will have neither.

You're more likely to get seriously scammed in a browser than by an actual malware/virus.

Car seat belts and helmets don't prevent accidents, but they surely improve survival rates.

You can remove them anytime. Do you really want your car to not start at all if the seatbelt is not on? I'm sure that would improve survival rate by something like 0.1%, too.

Actually there are models that already do it.

https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/new-general-motors-featu...

This is optional, available only for specific professional uses and above all: wearing a belt doesn't impact where you can go, whereas a locked down OS does impact what you run on it.

As developer I can run anything thanks license.

As consumer, app stores are more than proven.

> As developer I can run anything thanks license.

I cannot parse this, what do you mean?

> As consumer, app stores are more than proven.

I do not have any problem with app stores as long as they are not tied to a locked down OS. See Steam or any Linux repository front-end as an example of app stores that do it right.

Apple developer license.

So you need Apple's yearly approval to run your own software. Personally i consider this a major dystopian flaw of iOS and one of the main reasons i do not buy their devices (the other being their disregard towards backwards compatibility).

How dare they drop support for 68K software! How far back do you think they should stay backwards compatible? The newest ARM chips in iOS devices don’t have any support for 32 bit instructions and MacOS hasn’t supported 32 but processors for over a decade.

As the owner of my hardware, I need to be able to run anything. Make it hard, but not impossible.

But yeah, it's still a choice and Apple is not one of them.

I should not be surprised :(