I don't like the idea of not owning my own phone either, but you are not exactly forbidden to do whatever you like with your phone. It is more about what are yo

I don't like the idea of not owning my own phone either, but you are not exactly forbidden to do whatever you like with your phone. It is more about what are you capable of. This cap of capability has been increasing drastically with technology. Even if you had an old, repairable car, not everyone has capabilities to repair it or modify it to something else in the past. But now even less likely. The question is that how much they hinder on purpose? In the case of Apple, many times it might have been hindering on purpose, but some choices have also valid points. If you remember the old times of Android (and still), Android provides extra-ordinary attack surface for malware what iOS has never had. The distinction between Google and Apple is that you might think that with Android, as there are many manufacturers and brands, you have a choice, but it is just an illusion, if Google "abuses" it's market place with other manufactures. In the case of Apple, it's just Apple. Apple can do whatever they please but is unlikely affecting any other manufacturers or brands. If they want to compete with Apple, they need to be better than Apple. Of course, there is the value of user base. All the companies must try to adapt with the social behavior of people, and if they choose to use iPhone for playing games and listening music, companies must bring games and music on those platforms to be competitive. It is hard to get this userbase. The biggest issue of this particular case with Google were the deals. And other manufactures and companies since Google is not manufacturing the phones itself, but instead makes secret deals about the Play Store and other software. This goes to line of monopoly abuse, since it affects other companies and the illusion of choice, and also hinders innovation.