This.
What we will see are vendors conflating locking the device away from its user with anti-malware protection... two different things, but both are considered "security".
I will also not be surprised to see more remote monitoring, where if a device reports that it was jailbroken or rooted, the cellular network blacklists that device's IMEI.
The future is now. Look at the latest generation of consoles as what we are going to have in our pockets and on our desks. Consoles have no issues with malware and a 0% piracy rate. The main game makers (for the most part) thrive off of the same IP that was out over a decade ago. Any issues result in the console being blacklisted. To boot, you never know if you are being watched. A closed environment like a console can easily have an update pushed to turn the console into a 24/7/365 monitoring device, and there is no way for the user to fix it, outside of physically killing cameras, depowering it or tossing the console in the garbage.
We will also see a tipping point. If a group of people find a bootrom exploit that allows for the next iPhone to be jailbroken, or the exploit allows malware to be put on devices without detection... the malware authors will pay millions for it, while a JB might result in very little. Especially with the time a phone stays jailbroken being days to weeks before Apple pushes an update that closes the hole. In this time, a malware author can make a lot of money with no way to detect or trace his/her works.
Desktops used to be a bastion of freedom, but that is getting encroached as well. The hardware spec for Windows 10 allows CPU vendors to lock down the UEFI Secure Boot to just Windows, and the hardware spec mandates a TPM chip that is shipped on. In fact, any PC certified with Windows 8.1 has the TPM 2.0 chip present.
The only reason why we have not seen a wholesale push to get users completely in the cloud is the fact there is pushback due to the fact that bandwidth in the US is expensive and will remain so.
The sad thing is that we won this battle. In the early 1990s, there was a battle for the device that would be used for consumer browsing. It was the desktop versus the TV set top box. The desktop won because the STB was a monolithic environment and couldn't innovate. Now, we are seeing a rematch, and this time, innovation is stagnant for the desktop and new features, while the set top box has a lot of money behind it, and a lot more technology to lock it down.
A lot of people rather take a console with its ability to report everything you do to anyone upstream and other privacy constaints than a desktop. Trading freedom for security is a dumb thing.