Software that's built with money, keeps making design decisions that increase profit.
Software that's built ambivalent to money, makes other design decisions.
Most software is built with money.
The only thing that feels like it will fix this is a software/hardware bill of rights. E.g. right to repair, right to source, etc. Otherwise, things will get more exploitive, as products get cheaper.
Software that can afford to have 100 developers work on it will, on average, out-compete software that is sustained by 50 developers.
Software (note: not necessarily _good_ software, this could also be the shittiest software with a nice lock-in) that is good at making money, can afford more developers, lawyers and lobbyists.
It's nothing new under the sun, but it does suck in a major way.
Either the entity that sold you the software (or their successors) gives you standard access, tools, and specs to effect standard repairs.
Or if that entity cannot fulfill that responsibility (say, because they went bankrupt), their code is open-sourced.
The situation to avoid is "nobody cares about this thing, and nobody is available to service it."
There are movements for taking data entirely away from these companies, movements for repair and a host of other things. Eventually they will more than likely become mainstream and big tech is going to find itself on the end of a lot of regulation especially in the EU. There is no way they show self control before the point where DRM, gambling and engagement mechanics are involved they are simply too profitable.
Of all the options, a free market with regulation to internalize social externalities seems the optimal solution.