> The problem is that we don't have much choice brand-wise. We get to pick Apple or Android. From a security/privacy perspective, the various Android brands are more or less the same (or, more accurately, the best of them are still likely much worse than Apple, and the worst of them are likely backdoored by the manufacturer or the government where it's manufactured).

Completely agree. But this is always argued as it being Apple’s fault and not a market failure. Why don’t the supposedly better options ever gain enough share to be important?

> Capitalism and the mythical free market have given us two choices, each with very big negatives. I don't want either. I want a phone that respects and fights for my privacy and security, and is relatively easy and cheap to repair, and allows me control over what I run on it.

I mostly agree, but this isn’t an option we have. Again, is this Apple’s fault?

> (And I don't consider platforms like the PinePhone to be choices here. I want contactless payments on my phone, as well as Venmo/Cash App. I want my banking and airline/travel apps. I want Signal, Slack, Whatsapp. I want the app for my local gym. These things either don't run on other platforms, or provide a janky mobile web experience.)

Exactly. One doesn’t usually buy a thing based purely on one feature. All design has compromises, and we pick the most suitable from a limited set.