[thecrash]

It seems you're saying that since there's a choice on one level (phone architecture, Android vs. iOS), it doesn't matter if choice is denied on all other levels. Your reasoning seems to be that if anyone is unhappy with being prevented from doing something with their phone, they can resolve it by buying a different phone.

This notion of freedom is compelling in its elegance, but it's not how freedom is generally understood in contexts where most people have pre-existing commitments and investments which constrain their exercise of a particular high-level choice.

For example while it's true that people who live in an authoritarian state generally do have the ability to leave, we don't consider that option to absolve the authoritarian state of its responsibility to grant rights to its citizens. The reason is that it's very hard for most people to switch countries: it requires learning a new language, re-buying all the possessions and property that can't be relocated, and losing all the connections and efficiencies people depend on to make their lives work well.

Because of the high switching cost, people who had the misfortune to settle in a state which turned authoritarian are likely to submit to conditions which they don't actually agree with or like. We don't consider such people to be free, despite the nominal first-order freedom of choice they do have.