> I'm bothered, as I have been since the original iPad introduction 16 years ago, by the unnecessary restrictions placed by corporate powers to run third-party software and operating systems on devices we own.
It's not unnecessary, they do it because they make money as gatekeeper.
It's also because U.S. carriers don't like people hooking up arbitrary devices that can run arbitrary software to their network. In the civilized world, you have a device that talks GSM/LTE, you're golden as long as you don't violate any transmission laws. But in the USA carriers are still doing device allowlisting because I guess they want to bin QoS and don't want pro-grade traffic going over consumer accounts, nor the added expense of support for consumer accounts with exotic hardware that "might" break the network.
Just wanting to be a gatekeeper doesn't cover measures like SIP that don't make them anything and presumably took immense man-hours to implement.
I think the more accurate view would be an intersection of some of the company wanting to make money off gatekeeping and some of the company wanting to make quality devices that stay functional and malware-free even after you give to a deeply gullible grandparent for a while, and the former using the latter as a transparent excuse much of the time.
A big factor in the success of the iPad and maybe just some degree the iPhone, but especially the iPad, is that it’s “unbreakable”. All out restrictions mean it’s computer people don’t worry will suddenly stop working because they clicked to the wrong link. It won’t get a weird virus from their email.
They could allow unlocking the phone by burying that option deep in the settings with scary warnings etc. Most people could use the device with the restrictions. The fact that this is not possible at all is greed.
If they did that, every influencer would make youtube videos and tik toks telling people how they should enable that setting to make their phone better or more powerful "for free", and everyone would just do it, especially the people who really shouldn't because they don't know any better.
No they wouldn't. We don't have to speculate about that; Android already has a toggle to allow direct installation of apps, and most people don't turn it on.
Many Android devices allow unlocking the bootloader and gaining root or installing an alternate OS without exploits, and there are quite a few third-party Android builds for supported devices. The process is not beyond what a person of average intelligence and modest computer skills could pull off with some patience and a video guide. Only a handful of tech nerds actually do it.
Perhaps we're making different assumptions, but a process that "is not beyond what a person of average intelligence and modest computer skills could pull off with some patience and a video guide" sounds quite a bit more complex than a mere Unlock option in iPhone settings. Also, the results are different too. The process you've described results in an Android desktop, whereas the proposed iphone unlock process would result in a full macOS desktop, which sounds (to me at least) much more desirable to have.
I stand by my speculation that if it were possible to do that on an iphone, it'd definitely be something loads of people would do, including a large amount of people who shouldn't open their device that way but do just because they watched someone on social media telling them to.
MacOS does more than just give you a warning when you're opening a program not vetted by them -- it prevents you from opening it, so that's not really a good example of education, and is in fact an example of lockdown.
I'm not arguing that anything get any more locked down than it already is, so your points (while possibly valid in a bigger discussion) don't make a lot of sense here in this discussion about a hypothetical "unlock phone" setting.
I feel like that same reason is why you see a lot of seriously tech-savvy people try to use iPads as laptop substitutes over and over even though they're obviously still not suitable for it for technical tasks. There's a lot of latent appeal in "okay, what if I just didn't have to worry about any of that ambient technical crap?".
It's not unnecessary, they do it because they make money as gatekeeper.