Yes it is, and liability across the industry is already late.

By the way, in some countries apartment buildings need several licenses, including one from fire department, before been allowed to have people living on them.

The problem is that general purpose computing platforms are not supposed to be secured against the user. That's a WONTFIX.

User ownership of their devices has been fixed on every platform except PCs.

And most other device types have a specific purpose, with the exception of mobile phones which were built from the ground up with device control in mind, mobile devices only really support one operating system barring edge case exceptions.

Because only one was written, but there's more than one because there's LineageOS — if you can bypass Secure Boot.

That an edge case. Linage works on a subset of devices. Find me an amd64 computer that doesn’t support Linux.

I think you’d agree that it would be far easier to technically and socially lock mobile devices to signed deployments only, with jailbreaks becoming rarer and more valuable over time, than to do the same with desktop and laptop computers, due to their requirement to support many different functional requirements (PcIe, thunderbolt peripherals, distributed compute, etc).

I’m not saying I like this, but I think phones will become a single viable OS and locked down ecosystem in the next 5 years. Desktops will follow, but not at the same rate.

It’s not the nurses job to perform surgery either, that’s why they don’t.

Microsoft could easily secure windows by blocking all rootkits/"kernel anti cheat". At this point that's probably the best option.

Games should never have kernel level access.

Games are a multi billion dollar industry that Microsoft has a stake in. A better option would be a ‘games mode’ and a ‘secure mode’.