As the x86_64 world continues to get more locked down, it's going to be interesting to see whether a market niche opens up for a less-constrained platform.
The "locked down" designs come from two big motivators: DRM and security. Since many snapdragon phones are sold with subsidies, the signed bootloader allows the network operator to restrict the phone's "owner" in various fashions. The security provided by a signed bootloader is real -- it's much harder for a malicious actor to create ransomware that targets mobile phones like they do PCs.
I'd expect/hope that you can decide not to opt-in on the Snapdragons' SecureMSM features, but it doesn't seem any "less-constrained" than Intel or AMD's offerings.
> Intel didn't force this upon the consumers
is wrong. I know that vendors producing servers want that Intel ME (because otherwise remote servicing servers would be much harder), but they surely did not require from Intel that Intel ME cannot be disabled.
> Intel didn't force [Intel TXT & UEFI Secure Boot] upon the consumers
is true. Both of those things can be disabled on most hardware. In fact, I disabled them on the laptop the I just bought, because I wanted to install OSes that aren't SecureBoot signed.
Don't forget the sequel Fighting Back in the War on General Purpose Computers:
Here are some pages with details:
https://www.coreboot.org/Binary_situation https://www.coreboot.org/Intel_Management_Engine https://www.coreboot.org/Blob_Matrix
Intel also made it so that a PC has a timer that turns it off after 30 minutes if you don't run their signed firmware.