> People have…

Then provide security guarantee. Apps can’t read my contacts unless I explicitly give them access. Google and Apple have still yet to take trivial steps to protect users (e.g. ability to deny an app network access). This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control.

> If you want to tinker around, buy a Raspberry Pi 500.

Why? Why should tinkering be banned completely of the computer that most people use the most in their whole life (often their only computer)?

> Then provide security guarantee. Apps can’t read my contacts unless I explicitly give them access. Google and Apple have still yet to take trivial steps to protect users (e.g. ability to deny an app network access). This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control.

Even if such a permission existed, how many grandmas do you think will obey when instructed: "I will send you a link, please do the needful and download this app, then go into settings and enable internet access, contact access, and payment method access"? My guess is: a lot.

> Why? Why should tinkering be banned completely of the computer that most people use the most in their whole life (often their only computer)?

Because 99.9% of the users of such computers do not care about "the ability to tinker", wouldn't miss it if it were gone, and are at substantially greater risk of fraud, identity theft, or worse if it were there.

Because the average user cannot reliably—and doesn't want to—manage security permissions for every app. The UAC dialogs were a stark lesson in this. Users are easily tricked or lulled into giving an app permissions it shouldn't have.

Anyway, Google isn't banning tinkering completely, only tinkering without accountability.