I do not believe the argument that these changes are undertaken out of concern to protect users, whether it is made with respect to "features" of Intel chips (including Intel SGX), corporate-controlled OS, advertising-supported browsers, etc.
It is difficult to prove such organizations are deliberately trying to make things more difficult for users to control, unless of course employees inside these organizations speak out. The organizations can always provide alternate reasons for doing what they are doing.
However I recall reading of a comment made by Gates in the 1990's, at a time when he wanted Windows installed on every PC sold, that he did not like the idea of users potentially changing BIOS settings. I can only guess as to why, but it is curious to me that we are left with certain strange historical artifacts such as Windows always needing to be installed in the first partition. Other OS do not have this requirement.
While that sort of deliberate subterfuge may be difficult to prove, I think it would be easier to argue these organizations believe (or pretend to believe) that users are "incapable" in ways that have no basis in fact.
You, dear user, are incapable of controlling your computer. We, benevolent organization, can help. Just sit back and we will take care of everything.