Not only that - DRM requires crypto for its functionality. They’d have to provide the tech to some and deny it to others. They’d have to use the same tech they want to deny to the users to police the users.
Then there’s the issue of rooted devices. I for one demand my toys to be under my command, and get a root whenever I can even if I don’t strictly need it, as a matter of both principle and precaution. (My new-hardware choices are strongly influenced by this requirement, too.) These would have to be stamped out; otherwise the “remote application removal” “feature” could be too easy to remove.
And then there’s another issue, of those pesky ubiquitous SoC chips, and even those little cheap boards the market is now full of. It is annoyingly easy to make a secure phone with one, using either a M2M comm module, or even a stock cellphone used only as an untrusted comm peripheral via USB or bluetooth link.
The adversary cannot win. They can be unpleasant, they can slow things down, but they technically cannot win.
Edit: It also shows that there is quite a tradeoff. We can accept a walled garden approach, and suck up all the imposed limitations in exchange of relative safety of somewhat-vetted applications, with the tradeoff of being forced into mandated insecurity. Or we can jailbreak our stuff and sideload apps, with the risk of getting exploited (as black market apps will have problems with quality control - but that can be also somewhat solved, we just need very strong reverse-engineering tools - virtual reality visualisations of code flow, where are you?) - see what China does to the alternative comm apps for iPhones, e.g. the malware used during the Hong Kong protests.
I’ll go for the latter, as the adversary at least has to attack actively (and leave forensic traces).
And I’m waiting for the apple-flavored Kool Aid drinkers to swarm out and argue that Walled Gardens Are Good.
