The issue is there is no true demand. Yeah, everyone kinda want a device they own - when faced a very direct question and explanation how things really really work. But typically most people don't even think about ownership of the devices they buy - or even falsely assume they "own" those. And those who are aware about the issue have to either pay premium for their rarity (if that's even available in their market - which is not always the case), or agree to not own a device.

So, yeah, ideally everyone should own what they buy, if they want so - and they should be aware what exactly they buy and what are the gotchas. But... how? I believe this "caveat emptor" informational disparity is a multimillenia-old issue.

(Fine print, obviously, doesn't work - because human nature.)

Remember back when you could get "free" dial-up internet by accepting ads? And later Facebook did much the same thing?

I see the whole personal data/tracking industry as that model. You can get a tracking-supported smartphone for $50 or with almost no tracking for $150. This whole thread is people saying they don't want to pay $150 to own a smartphone when they can get that phone for $50 with tracking.

I have a similar problem with slavery. I don't like it. But the smartphone market is utterly dominated by people who are just fine with slavery so there's just one company making a "less slavery" phone and that phone barely sells. Their forums have multiple threads with people complaining quite openly "why does it cost more to make a phone with less slavery" and suggesting that the company could provide more features for a lower price if they just forgot this whole "fairphone" business.

Smartphones are expensive to make and expensive to run. You pay that price either with money, or a mix of money and social/ethical cost.

Technology was also a hell of a lot less complicated until recently.

Technology you don't own is cheaper because the provider can sell your data. I suppose it's a "good thing" there exists tech the poor can afford.

During what period was income not a barrier to “having technology that you own completely”?

Given that the only people frothing at the mouth in desire of “having technology that [they] own completely” seem to be rich computer programmers, why wouldn’t companies jack the price up?