Though it's harder to be lucratively anti-user without a channel for telemetry and control.
I've long pondered if an economy around Free software could be better implemented. We take it as a forgone conclusion that wide source code availability precludes charging per-instance, but really that's just an assumption.
Of course the idea is likely moot in the light of network effects, which seem to be a major underlying factor of the current harsh dichotomy.
IMO the problem is two pronged: a) hardware changes too much too fast creating a constant hamster wheel of driver hacking which puts GNU, Illumos, and BSD at a disadvantage, and b) that hardware is nowhere near significantly documented enough to make driver writing quick and painless. (a) can be fixed by having platform standards where the interfaces and commands are the same between device brands, but I think the better solution would be to fix (b) by using force of law or taxation to make device manufacturers fully and publicly document their hardware so that there are no "magic" or secret instructions, allowing FOSS hackers the ability to write open drivers. Ideally solution for (b) would be wide enough to include firmware and microcode, and penalty (tax) being both heavy enough (50%-200%) and applied at the customer purchase point of the chain (tax is on the final MSRP of the computer/phone/game-console/microwave/vehicle and not simply on the price of the noncompliant internal component[s]).
(b) can be done with a proposition in the State of California and a few million spent on a very convincing ad campaign ("Vote yes on Proposition 42 to take back total control of your computing devices! Don't let advertisers and data leeches control and dictate your life from behind the curtain!"). California because it's home to a big chunk of Big Tech, and because it's a market too big to simply ignore and not sell into.
I don't disagree with your idea, but unfortunately there is always going to be that churn. Commercial device/app developers have lots of money to invest in robust development and advertisement, to beget the return of more money. Meanwhile, the economic benefits to preserving people's autonomy (/dignity) is spread out amongst those people. Which is why in another comment, I called it a "zero" million dollar idea.
The flip side is all of this device churn is all the actually devices left in the wake, available for cheap/free. If software is done right, even last-decade specs are perfectly capable devices good for another decade. Which is what we need, because convincing someone to pave over their current device or spend a lot on a new "weird" one isn't going to happen. Tablets got a foothold by being a new type of device, rather than an immediate replacement.
I wonder if it's possible to create some Paternon-like project that is inclusive, proportional to use, and does not fall victim to politics or administrative take-overs.
I've long pondered if an economy around Free software could be better implemented. We take it as a forgone conclusion that wide source code availability precludes charging per-instance, but really that's just an assumption.
Of course the idea is likely moot in the light of network effects, which seem to be a major underlying factor of the current harsh dichotomy.