&gt;<i>So you&#x27;re saying we should inductively reason that Apple will never change their behavior even though they already restrict the iphone? This is a large claim.</i><p>No, I&#x27;m saying that what IS has more substance than the myriads of things that we&#x27;re worried that CAN BE.<p>And, for this specific question mentioning the iPhone, I&#x27;m also saying that restricted, special purpose devices, which were ALWAYS sold as such (like mobile phones ever since the early nineties) are not the same as PCs which have other uses cases and history.<p>&gt;<i>Do you want a warning about the possible arsonist who seems to be stacking gas cans near your house?</i><p>Not when the only reason to think of them as &quot;arsonist&quot; is for stacking gas cans, when that also has another very logical explanation (e.g. he&#x27;s building a gas station).<p>In the case of Apple, they&#x27;re improving the security of OS releases, the same way Microsoft and other do. Sandboxes, secure modes, signed apps, are all standard things security researchers have been advising for years.<p>In all those years since they introduced signed and sandboxes apps, they never removed the ability to run non sandboxed and&#x2F;or non-signed apps. So I also doubt they&#x27;ll remove the ability to turn off SIP, as it&#x27;s still needed for various use cases.<p>But even if they do change the SIP, no big deal for 99% of their customers. The rest can always use another platform, unless they value the (then) convenience, virus-tolerance etc of OS X more than they value the &quot;do everything with them&quot; openness of other platforms.<p>Just because some people started with a &#x27;assemble yourself&#x27; kit PC in the 80s, it doesn&#x27;t mean that the essence of having a PC is all about custom rigging it. And even more so, that was never the allure of Apple PCs (neither implicit or advertised). It was &quot;it just works&quot;.