I find it interesting that all the things Apple did from the start in the name of security, Google is slowly needing to do over time in the name of security. Meanwhile, various parties (the EU being the big one) are pushing to have Apple role back some of these controls.
The parent is telling you what the obvious, correct solution is: secure the runtime. That's how MacOS stops attackers, that's how Windows stops attackers, and there's no reason to pretend that smartphones are some unique situation. Runtime security should not ever be treated as optional.
US Senators like Ron Wyden would probably tell you that Apple's approach harms your security overall. After all, he was the one that whistleblew Apple's hidden and warrantless Push Notification surveillance pipeline. Forcing you to rely on a first-party service you can't replace is never a secure option, not in the US nor Europe.
When a design decision has potential motivations that are based in security or anticompetitive behavior, my first guess as to Google's primary motivation is not security.
