The article assumes that end users finding problems in the software would prove beneficial to the company. To the contrary, I'd expect the company would soon be sued into oblivion for "allowing" production release of such an "obvious" problem.

While certainly the malicious can figure out how to abuse a system without source code, the owner/author doesn't have to hand the means of abuse to the malicious on a silver platter.

Yes, end users (me being one) have an interest in identifying flaws in their physically internalized lifespan-affecting software. The company making the product has an interest in limiting access to that source code. There are plenty who would rather use the source code to destroy the latter than to benefit the former.

This is why we (in the USA) have the FDA: recognizing that the public has an interest in reviewing a product's engineering for safety purposes, yet respecting the company's need to ward off the malicious, representatives of the public are sent in to review the product for corrective improvement without exposing the company to malicious harm.