I don't follow these types of arguments that the market is an true indicator of what people actually desire. If you ask anyone on the street if they would like any of these things out of technology they would unanimously say yes. But I agree it is not worth the trade-offs to actually fight for these things for most people. It doesn't mean these things are not desired, it is just that other things are desired more.
Also, why do you put the word people in quotations? Just because most aren't interested in pursuing technological freedoms doesn't make them less of a people.
The world makes more sense when you learn that what people say and what they do are almost never the same. This is why markets and other analysis of behavior are greater predictors than polls or surveys or esp anecdotes
Its more complex than that. People aren't given a choice of "This is the pixel phone with spyware and this is the pixel phone without spyware, they cost the same and are functionally identical"
They are shown a pixel and nothing is said of privacy, and then if they know to dig deeper and find an option with more privacy but much more expensive and lacking massive amounts of features.
In some cases its impossible to avoid a trade-off. A bigger battery will result in a bigger phone so people who say the would buy a bigger battery phone end up not doing that. But for privacy, there doesn't have to be a trade off.
Why do you think what people do is a better indication of what they want as oppose to what they say they want?
For example, some addict wants to quit, but continue to abuse.
I think a lot of modern tech is designed to make us addicts. So it's pretty apt example. And of course, using the market as the only indication of what people want is creating incentives that optimize for addiction.
But revealed choice isn't a true indication of preference if the options to choose from don't allow for expression of preference. The market isn't some neutral A/B test because the seller is incentivized to manipulate A and B.
It's more of a market game situation, where buyer choice says as much about seller preference as it does buyer preference at some level.
I am not on the street and no one asked me, but things have tradeoffs.
Do I want the right to change providers, verify, and so on? Sure. Do I want them at any cost? No.
I could get a lot of those things today, right now if I was willing to switch to a linux desktop and PureOS phone. I have tried switching to linux many times and and can say with certainty that I am willing to trade quite a bit to be able to use macOS instead of ubuntu, fedora, etc...While I haven't tried PureOS specifically, I did have an Android phone for a while and much prefer iOS.
oh I put it in quotations because I was quoting the word the author used. I didn't mean it as "these so-called 'people'", but reading it back I can see how it could read that way.
To your first point, I think what people buy does have a reasonable correlation with what they want when there are other options. Taking the costs into account is of course part of the calculation. "They desire it but only if it is free and without any trade-offs whatsoever" isn't a very useful definition of "want".
Caveat: this only works when people can have/do what they really want. Ex. In a world where 99% of people haven't even heard of a smartphone that doesn't use Android or iOS, you can't tell if people value things that neither platform provides.
'Desires' taken out of context are also not very meaningful (e.g. "if money were no object.." type speculations). Cost, particularly relative to means, being a prime example of such context.
Also, why do you put the word people in quotations? Just because most aren't interested in pursuing technological freedoms doesn't make them less of a people.