No. Ubuntu makes private package archives (PPAs) very simple to use; many packages are available from the maintainer’s PPA.
There are many alternative repositories for essentially all distorts today; snaps and flatpaks are indeed not yet polished enough, but they are much better and easier for 99% of users than tarballs, so calling tarballs a “best case scenario” is, in my opinion, wrong.
And how are PPAs fundamentally different from downloading a Windows installer from the Internet? If I download the installer from the maintainer's site, there's 0 risk (assuming HTTPS). And the site giving the PPA link is just as likely to be a phishing site as the the one serving some exe. Except browsers will sometimes warn on strange executables, whereas none do on misleading PPA links.
You were complaining tarballs are the “best case” and are not good enough because they’re too hard for regular users.
PPA is as easy as windows downloads; it updates the same way as the main system unlike windows; and it always go through ununtu’s Servers which makes it somewhat more monitorable. But that’s a new discussion.
There are many alternative repositories for essentially all distorts today; snaps and flatpaks are indeed not yet polished enough, but they are much better and easier for 99% of users than tarballs, so calling tarballs a “best case scenario” is, in my opinion, wrong.