TPM was widely misunderstood (thanks to the Anderson "TCPA FAQ", which went into hyperbole real quickly). It was also defused a bit due to public pressure.
With the Windows Logo Requirements (which are the real issue surrounding secureboot), there are some indications that things will end up bad, but that's speculation (but on a better foundation than the TCPA FAQ back then IMHO).
What's going on now is public pressure - and it already worked to some degree, since the Logo Requirements went from "has to provide it, disabling optional" on x86 to "must allow disabling secureboot".
TPM was widely misunderstood (thanks to the Anderson "TCPA FAQ", which went into hyperbole real quickly). It was also defused a bit due to public pressure.
With the Windows Logo Requirements (which are the real issue surrounding secureboot), there are some indications that things will end up bad, but that's speculation (but on a better foundation than the TCPA FAQ back then IMHO). What's going on now is public pressure - and it already worked to some degree, since the Logo Requirements went from "has to provide it, disabling optional" on x86 to "must allow disabling secureboot".