> These measures are always marketed as being for security from hackers and more recently also in the name of privacy That's because they are. The reality is t

> These measures are always marketed as being for security from hackers and more recently also in the name of privacy That's because they are. The reality is the existence of side-loading and third-party stores on Android contributes directly to the spread of malware on the platform, which is why Google has made it more difficult to do so with each successive release of Android. According to Nokia's threat intelligence report (https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/205835 https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/205835), Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of malware infections compared to 0.85% from iPhones. (Note that even after scaling for the number of devices there is still an order of magnitude difference.) Windows/PCs at 35.82% and IoT devices at 16.17% make up the rest. That's right, Android has overtaken Windows as the biggest malware vector on the planet. According to Kaspersky's mobile malware report (https://securelist.com/mobile-malware-evolution-2019/96280/ https://securelist.com/mobile-malware-evolution-2019/96280/), 13.89% of users in the United States were attacked by mobile malware in 2019. In some other countries the numbers are significantly higher: 21.23% in Brazil, 24.14% in Mexico, 27.36% in Malaysia, 37.98% in India, and 60.64% in Iran. The overwhelming majority of mobile malware targets the Android platform. If you want to argue that your right to "freedom" over your device is so important to you that you believe the risk of malware is worth the tradeoff, that's one thing, but don't hand-wave away the very real security benefits of strictly controlled devices as "marketing". It's disingenuous.