> Seriously, how about just giving control to users?
"Users" as you likely remember them—"power users by necessity", people who willingly learned the arcana of computing just to use the thing—don't exist any more. They died out in the 90s, when computers stopped booting to BASIC and dialing into BBSes.
You know how it feels to use a centrally-managed corporate workstation?
That's how people now expect all computers to work. They're using it; but "someone else" is the sysadmin. They don't have admin privileges; "the IT department" does, or "their phone carrier" does, or "Google" does (in the case of something like a Chromebook.)
Corporations can still be the sysadmin for their own enterprise rollouts of Windows (and if you're a real "power user", I'd suggest going the route of pretending you're a corporate IT department managing a one-machine deployment—Windows is a lot more "submissive" in that state); but now Microsoft themselves are the sysadmin-of-last-resort.
But don't think for a moment that before this, most users were their own sysadmin-of-last-resort. Again, that died out in the 90s, when computers stopped being "business machines" that hobbyists could do some pro-am work with (in the same sense that one might build a machine-shop in their garage); and began instead being marketed to anyone and everyone.
Before Microsoft assumed the role, the sysadmin-of-last-resort for most post-Eternal-September users was either "my nephew who knows computers"; or it was "nobody"—until things got really bad, at which point they'd bring the computer into a repair shop and a random repair-tech would be the sysadmin. (It's like having no family doctor, only a free clinic you visit in emergencies!)
As one of those former "nephews who knows computers", let me tell you that I'd much rather Microsoft have the job than I.
> Don't tell me users like it, you could just offer an app in that case.
People like the idea of donating organs, but that doesn't mean they'll ever seek out a consent form to opt into the organ-donor program. But in countries where it's opt-out, they don't bother to seek out the de-consent form, either. It's just such a far-away concern to most people, that there's too much inertia for people to change the default no matter what it is. (And if someone comes up to them and asks, they'll default to whichever option is less trouble—i.e. continuing be either opted-in or opted-out, depending—even if it's not the option that they'd prefer. They just don't want this time stolen from their day, for something they care so little about; and since changing things can often have unexpected not-mentioned-up-front labor-costs, they put negative expected-value on switching, even if they put positive value on the switched end-state.)