Not only for-profit companies may build computers; non-profit organisations, cooperatives, governments may, too. I think that's a good way out of the problem described in the article.

Most people don't know the anti-features present, and even if they did, the price hike to get rid of them is so big they wouldn't buy. Some may call it the market working as intended, but I see it as a problem - this is very far from "voluntary transaction between informed parties", and there's little ability for customers to use money to voice their preferences. It's a purely vendor-driven market: vendors get to dictate features and anti-features, with little to no way of opting out.

I'd like to see this fixed, but I don't think there's an easy way to do it. The issue dovetails with intellectual property laws - situation could've been different if money could be made in gutting hardware, firmware and software and removing anti-features at scale. But we can't have that, because every single piece of a computer is its own IP minefield.